[flagged]

I agree. Very shallow "sources" and no qualifications to be speaking on a medical topic. There is a role for pop science to disseminate knowledge but this is pure speculation.

There's nothing wrong with speculation on HN. Speculation is intimate with curiosity, and curiosity, not correctness, is the guiding value of this site.

It may seem odd to demote correctness in that way, but it doesn't mean we value incorrectness. Correctness is good, just not at the top of the hierarchy. Curiosity (specifically, intellectual curiosity) is what we're optimizing for: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor....

We value the freedom to meander curiously. Some paths turn out to be wrong [1], but that is how new things are learned, and it's a good way to spend time. People are allowed to be wrong on HN as part of figuring out what's true [2]. Truth is crucial, but one ought not to squeeze the throat of speculation so tightly that wrong things aren't allowed to be spoken, or fun to be had.

[1] not saying the OP is right or wrong - I have no idea - but the article looks like the fun kind of meandering that has a place here.

Edit: https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=meander - "from Greek Maiandros, name of a river in Caria noted for its winding course". Is there a better website than etymonline?

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11655206

I can't judge if you are correct or not. It would be more convincing if you could name some of the problems. Since the article is "garbage", there should be lots of things wrong to choose from.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I am in awe about how wonderfully engineered by evolution the body is. E.g., what we are able to do with it and how it heals itself when we have an injury. Sure, many people would not live long without external intervention, but many others would. I still want to see the robot that can survive 80 active years without maintenance.

The human body can't survive 80 active years without maintainance. They take drugs, they see the doctor, etc.

What did people do 500 years ago?

Die as a child at alarming rates

But those who did not, got quite old without ever seeing a doctor.

(If we are talking about hunter gatherers, not poor exploited peasants)

Citation required

Gurven, Michael & Hillard Kaplan (2007). “Longevity Among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination.” Population and Development Review, 33(2), 321–365

If you made it past age 5 as a hunter-gatherer you’d likely live to 50-60 years of age.

Interesting. Yet as someone approaching the first of those two last numbers, I would say that that isn't very old at all

Humans have assisted each other medically, supported injured and disabled tribe members, and sought out medicinal herbs since long before history was written. I'm not sure how you'd delineate between modern health care and when humans never had some notion of health care and/or support when bodies enter failure modes. We don't survive well without a lot of assistance and care, and living long lives required plenty of bodily maintenance regardless of how fortunate and healthy we were.

I think, if you add clarity, such as how aspirin alone is a wonder, how iodine to clean wounds is a life saver, how soap is a miracle, and all the parasites we don't have, yet all this we take for granted.

We are certainly much healthier, with the little trinkets we keep in our houses.

Willow bark was used like aspirin. Soap is a old concept (ash is desinfectant as is vinegar ). Alcohol for cleaning wounds is a very old concept alike. As was jumping into clean water every day (also in winter).

quite old as in 50 because the avg lifespan back then is certainly lower than it is now.

no you don't

Well, we do at least have to eat enough food and sleep ~1/3rd of our lives. That's kinda maintenance

Compared to most animals that spend their entire day foraging for food, it's not too bad. Adapting to eating dense and very nutritious animal flesh is a great time-saver, and as we didn't evolve long fangs, we had to learn to use tools instead, and the rest is history. (mixing cause and effect here for dramatic purposes)

I think learning to cook food was likely a greater benefit. It's like we externally expanded our means of digestion.

I watched a Ted talk where the speaker suggested our large brains with their high energy consumption would not have been possible were it not for cooking.

Which came first, steak or intelligence?

The human machine doesn't just survive without external intervention, it actually gets better at being a machine. Speed, endurance, power, coordination... all improve with usage.

The lack of heart cancer might be more complex than the OP imagines:

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/no-heart-cancer-th...

   I greatly resent having to be a biological organism and subject to all the poor engineering and design decisions that entails.

The first word of that sentence implies its absurdity quite beautifully. She resents, therefor she is.

And then this:

  Brains. After you reach adulthood, neurons don’t divide. If some of your neurons die—which happens every day—then they’re gone. If you get a brain injury, the other neurons will try to “learn around” the injury, but the neurons themselves are never replaced.

We need more neuroscience in schools! This summary is technically correct ofc, but to imply that the brain is missing some obviously-better option is absurd. We're meat that thinks, y'all; it's far from crap.

IIRC the slow loss of neurons is more than balanced by the additional fine-tuning - unless you get dementia, if course.

Loss of neurons isn't disastrous as long as it's not too many. Babies are born with several times more neurons than children have, and spend a few months letting all the useless ones die. Apparently it's better to start with a random tangle and prune it to shape (like cutting a box hedge) than to make a hedge grow in a box shape to begin with.

And IIRC brains can grow more neurons under some circumstances (certain drugs?) - they just normally don't.

Evolution decided the good outweighed the bad, and I expect that evolution was right.

We can expect evolution to do the right thing for the genes. Not for us.

I get its just a framework to understand what is happening, but I always hate the phrasing of describing a 'decision' to a process like evolution. There are no decisions being made in the process, just a series of outcomes that lead in a direction

Evolution is literally just the observation that there are lots of things that self-replicate.

That's it. That's the entire thing. Plus some nuance about things that self-replicate faster than other things...

It occurs at all levels. Amyloid protein in Alzheimer's patients is self-replicating. So are cells. So are individual parts of cells. Sometimes things replicate by being parts of a larger thing that replicates, sometimes they don't. It's all one big chaotic tangled mess with no particular purpose or design. Human cells evolve, so do humans, so do human societies. So do rocks.

Rocko can't have kids, because Rocko is just a stupid rock.

No, evolution is not an observation that there are things that replicate. Darwin's view, which has survived mostly intact, is that there is replication with variation and that more fit individuals replicate at a higher rate ("survival of the fittest" isn't a correct description; plenty of less fit individuals do replicate, but they contribute very little to the population genetics in the long run)

And amyloid protein doesn't self-replicate. An instance of the misfolded form causes other folded proteins of the same type to transition to the misfolded form. It's a form of catalysis, not self-replication.

Seems like splitting a hair. In a world abundant with other amyloids, they'd self-replicate. Cells likewise need nutrients and a favorable environment.

Selfish gene theory is discredited as reductionist and mostly wrong. You can't ignore the whole organism.

The punishment for Prometheus stealing fire from the Gods and gifting it to humanity, was to be chained to a rock and having an eagle feed on his liver which would regrow the next day.

For what it's worth, Prometheus was a Titan, and Titan was immortal, so his liver regrowing the next day wasn't really that special. If eagle fed on his heart, or lungs, they would've regrown too.

The Greeks chose liver because it symbolized the defiance Prometheus had against gods.

Why would liver signal defiance?

It was the believed area of emotion, passion and 'soul'. I think western/modern religion has morphed from the liver to the heart essentially.

There are a bunch of Japanese words (including a several loanwords from Chinese) that use the liver / gallbladder metaphorically for courage. Both derive from associations between the humours and personality / behavior. I have no idea, however, why both Eastern and Western naive psychology associate gall with, well, gall.

I phrased it awkwardly. Simply put, in Ancient Greece, liver was something like heart in modern society. It was the seat of human emotions.

So by destroying Prometheus' liver, Zeus attempted to destroy his human emotions, including his pride and defiance against gods.

There's really no knowing why the Greeks chose liver, or some specific Greek chose liver.

It could have been because the liver was regenerative and they were using the titan with the regenerating liver as another reference to humanity, or it could have been as someone pointed out because predators like to eat the liver first, or it could have been that you can take damage to the liver and live for hours afterwards in agony whereas the same amount of damage to the heart or lungs is apt to cause death to come much quicker.

Perhaps there are undiscovered variants out there were the eagle or a serpent or some other animal attacks his genitals, or his eyes.

But at any rate the Eagle ate his liver, it means nothing in particular, and at the same time it means every particular interpretation we can place on it.

Whatever the actual reason for choosing the liver was, we can be certain it wasn't its regenerative property, since such proprerty was unknown to the Greeks at the time.

I don't know about the Greeks but I know a lot of ancient cultures thought the liver was the most important organ (probably because it's full of blood).

For example in Persian poetry the word liver is found pretty much everywhere you would expect to see the word heart.

"You are my liver" is a nice/romantic thing to say to this day.

I thought they chose it because it tastes great with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Anybody on HN knows platforms to discuss this ?

This is a platform and we are discussing this, which means such a platform isn't enough for what you need. Not judging, actually I've felt a degradation in engagement quality as of late, maybe it's personal bias, but the discussions seem more shallow or aggressive.

In any case, what would you expect from such a platform? That would help with recomendations.

Hacker news is dedicated to 'tech' and I'm looking for advances in biology.

I was in the same place you are now but looking for places to discuss philosophy and looking at the state of mainstream sites like Reddit I decided the open web isn't a place for such discussions because of the sheer volume of noise.

I think the best place to discuss most things nowadays is the real world, but it takes time to build connections in the real world. HN is still a place of real productive discussions but not without a lot of moderation and even so it's still barely functional.

I feel like this is obvious. Eventually dying of all the weird body failures doesn’t inhibit your ability to procreate, but if you cannot survive alcohol or other various poisons you’ll never make it to a fertile age.

Picking the wrong berry from a bush isn't so difficult. Ask me how I know. And, for my second encounter, don't think because you see an animal eating it, it's safe!

My guess is that this is half the story. It seems like there would be some advantage to some creatures of not aging, or having individuals who have significant longer life spans.

This is common in evolutionary algorithms anyway so it's notable we don't see it in nature, at least not in the form of extended lifespan perhaps measured by average lifetime heart beats. It's easy to imagine a world where nature might want to keep the alpha lion around longer than the others so it can have more offspring, for example.

It seems like there would be some advantage to some creatures of not aging, or having individuals who have significant longer life spans.

There is, if there were no advantage a whole lot more species would die immediately after reproduction like the octopus.

Many simpler organisms are vaguely immortal.

It's easy to imagine a world where nature might want to keep the alpha lion around longer than the others so it can have more offspring, for example.

The utility of genetic diversity puts a lot of pressure against this.

Because alcoholism forces hunter gatherer cultures into settlements, which are the next stage of civilization and reward those doing that choice?

wouldn't it be our ancestors just liked booze too much and the liver said alright genes, hold my beer

"Some day, your immune system may decide to attack your pancreas."

Immune attack of the pancreas is usually a disease of youth. Type 2 diabetes which is overwhelmingly the diabetes associated with aging is not an autoimmune disease.

Adult onset Type 1 has become a lot more common in recent decades. Ask me how I know.

Just like a ton of other autoimmune diseases.

Know someone who developed type 1 diabetes in his 30s.

It's so rare in adults it's got the cute name maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY).

And even after taking [immunosuppressants], there’s a 30% chance the kidney will be rejected within 10 years. This is not helpful.

To the author: thank you, you made my day. It had been a very, very long time since I last read an article on the Internet that felt written by a human being - with humor, some poetry, and science.

Immunosuppressants like tacrolimus given at too high of a level for many years can wear down your kidneys faster requiring a transplant potentially after ten years.

Why nature did this? So that 3rd parties don't engage in organ swaps?

Almost like Apple with component serialisation.

With very few exceptions, if there is something in you that isn't you then you would be better off if it was dead.

The way your body detects foreign cells is the same way your body detects foreign cells. It detects anything that doesn't have your, specific, randomly-generated at conception, friend-or-foe markers.

The author suggests humans are overturned to repairing skin and blood, but I strongly disagree. People with problems with wound healing can face significant disability and mortality. Wound healing allows us to have surgery and close up with simple sutures. A lot of complications post-surgery in humans and other animals are specifically from impaired wound healing capability. It’s a good trade-off: nearly everyone will eventually get cut open by accident or on purpose. The skins ability to heal is so amazing that many types of wounds require nothing other than some cleaning, the body will fully clot, bridge, build, and scar back to most retained function. Wound healing allows us to heal large burns and even simply leave many wounds open to air.

Complications with healing are pretty brutal. Necrosis, amputation, infection are all common without the built-in cascade we have.

Your liver makes platelets so if your liver function is not optimal, wound healing is harder.

Some people also have rare diseases where they don’t have clotting factors so require a transfusion of clotting factors before surgery for optimal wound healing.

Your liver makes platelets

Megakaryocytes are primarily bone marrow cells.

Many problems with would healing are due to nutrient deficiencies. For example, people who are sulfur deficient will heal and recover much slower than those who are not.

That's why so many professional athletes take MSM (Methylsulfonylmethane). Their bodies would not be able to recover as quickly without the extra sulfur.

I thought the reason was well known, and the article briefly touches it...

The liver's great ability to regenerate largely boils down to how homogenous and simple the liver actually is. It's structured more like a battery pack, where you have individual cells that are largely functionally identical to each other that perform the bulk of the work, and they happen to be connected together. If an individual cell fails, (for the most part) all you need to do is merely regrow a new one, and it's orientation matters little (relatively speaking as compared to other organs) so long as it's connected to the rest of the battery pack (organ).

Contrast that to something like a kidney, which has complex orientation that is formed via growth, and which has a high degree of different types of cells where replacing a part isn't as simple as merely regrowing the part which failed, but also about that growth happening in precisely the right location. So instead of it being like having to replace a failed cell in a battery pack, it's like replacing a wheel to a car. Attaching it anywhere (like the windshield for example) won't necessarily fix the issue, it needs to be connected to the axle...

Many if not most of these oddities about humans come down to either they don’t affect reproduction, or because humans are social animals. Menopause makes sense because a grandmother will have more successful descendants if she stops having babies and helps her daughters with the grandkids. I would guess the few other species that exhibit menopause are also social animals.

This is discussed at the bottom of the article: "Menopause: Humans, killer whales, pilot whales, beluga whales, false killer whales, narwhals one group of chimps in Uganda. No menopause: Everything else"

So, monkeys and apes (besides one species of chimps) don't get menopause, elephants don't get menopause, lions don't get menopause. If your prediction is, social animal => menopause, it's wrong 99% of the time.

Most of the body doesn't regenerate because there was not enough evolutionary pressure. Even with regeneration you could still easily die from some severe injury, blood loss or disease. While salamander regeneration is impressive, it has its limitations. For example, no known adult salamander can regenerate an entirely removed eye. Also if you chop a salamander, it will not regenerate like a Planarian worm, it will just die. And a fun fact, Axolotls can regrow a limb yet cannot regenerate an adult eye lens.

Also, although the article is mostly true, there are some inaccuracies:

> Neurons and cardiac muscle cells don't reproduce after childhood

There is some evidence showing a slow cell turnover in cardiac muscle, estimated around ~1% per year in young adults, falling toward ~0.5% in older people. Most neurons don't regenerate, but there an evidence that some parts of the adult brain (such as hippocampus) still produce new neurons, although the number is very low.

Liver regeneration is not perfect either: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOv7Sr3X-eo .

Actually I would argue that the evolutionary pressures run against it: if one generation dominates then the species can't evolve.

evolution doesn't act on the species or even individuals, it acts on the genes which is why it looks like evolution acts on the individual and its close family unit.

people have a hard time grasping this concept for some reason.

my favorite example to illustrate this is the trait of being poisonous. if evolution cared about species and then every single one would be poisonous and all predators would have to hyper specialize in prey (arms race between a particular poison and its resistance). it's precisely because it's so difficult to elicit a benefit from this strategy for the lineage that it's so rare. almost always a mutation in coloration has to happen to set the lineage apart from the others first. and then the lineage has to survive the disadvantage long enough.

The current model is that evolution acts on the molecular, cellular, and genetic level, and most importantly, at the population level.

I have an axolotl. They're really incredible creatures, with way more personality and interests than you would expect. They are really soft, and almost have the same density as water, so they can be neutrally buoyant and even swim rapidly like a fish. They're also very sensitive to sharp things; mine recently got a cut from an aquarium decoration, which healed fully over the course of a week. Her previous owner had neglected her and induced tail curl, which took longer to heal (a few months) but did fully heal. I have since adjusted her tank to give it all flat or smooth surfaces, with some variety.

https://ambystoma.uky.edu/teachers_materials/axolitbook/Axol...

I have first-hand experience! My immune system slowly killed my liver (primary sclerosing cholangitis), and I had a transplant. (btw, for $0, thank you to the Australian health system)

I received a cut-down liver from the donor; I got the bigger lobe, a child recipient got the other lobe.

Within a few months of transplant, the new liver had regrown, but (probably because of the transplant orientation) rather than growing across to the left, it grew down the side of my body.

It's all good and functions fine, it's just that now my right-side of my body isn't as 'saggy' as my left because of the area it grew in to.

It's an amazing organ, and it truly sucks when you don't have a well-functioning one.

Does this mean a healthy donor could donate a sizable chunk of their liver every year?

Possible? yes. Practical, not really. Living liver donors (at least in Australia) are rare, because (unlike kidney donations) it's an extremely risky procedure for a living donor. My donor was a deceased donor, and I'm forever grateful for their (and their family's) decision.

There were 709 living donor liver transplants in the United States last year.

Hello fellow PSCer! Amazing to hear even partial liver transplants work.

Hi, your friendly, local pathologist here. I'm the kind of doctor that diagnoses liver diseases, cancer, lots of infections, inflammatory processes, benign tumors, and runs the lab that a lot of other doctors use the results from to inform a lot of their other decisions.

If you really want to learn about this stuff, Robert Weinberg's The Biology of Cancer is where to start. It introduces concepts starting where a high school student could understand and carefully walks through the history of our development of knowledge until, by the end, the pithy chapters are helping novel concepts for real science flower in your brain all on their own. It's the best book of biological science I have ever read. 10/10, will read again.

https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393887655

Hi, just curious and with due respect to your expertise.. have you or plan to integrate AI into your practice? How have you used it so far?