<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>sjducb</author><text>Grandparents contribute to the survival of their grandchildren. Evolution has selected for long lived grandparents. The same thing happened in elephants and whales.</text><parent_chain><item><author>kurthr</author><text>Why would evolution &amp;quot;tweak the obvious knobs&amp;quot; for something well beyond our breeding age 100-500-5000 years ago?&lt;p&gt;The best argument is that those same tweaks affect child bearing&amp;#x2F;survival performance in the same direction. Since sickle cell and other diseases were selected for, it seems unlikely all of them go the same way.</text></item><item><author>api</author><text>Life extension in humans is difficult because we are already long lived for a high metabolism large mammal. That means evolution has probably already tweaked the obvious knobs.&lt;p&gt;It doesn’t mean it can’t be done, just that it is not likely to be as easy as pushing a few chemical buttons or turning something on or off.</text></item><item><author>Kalanos</author><text>Thanks for the review.&lt;p&gt;Surprised not to see any mention of interleukins and metformin. [Warning - metformin linked to birth defects]&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;s41586-024-07701-9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;s41586-024-07701-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;The more I learn about molecular biology&amp;#x2F;oncology, the more skeptical I am of longevity research. The pathways are usually broad hub genes that shouldn&amp;#x27;t be touched. E.g. Myc is an oncogene. As a rule of thumb, any time you see &amp;quot;reprogramming,&amp;quot; be skeptical.&lt;p&gt;Gene therapy for neurodegenerative diseases should not be considered longevity.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>A primer on the current state of longevity research</title><url>https://www.owlposting.com/p/some-questions-and-answers-i-had</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>marcus_holmes</author><text>This. If anything, evolution would seem to select for lower longevity so more breeding sooner (assuming that if we live longer we would put off breeding until later, which may not be true, and if it is, is probably only true with contraception).&lt;p&gt;And, of course, the oft-repeated &amp;quot;anything that happens after reproduction is irrelevant to evolution&amp;quot;. Which isn&amp;#x27;t 100% true (it takes a village to raise a child, after all).</text><parent_chain><item><author>kurthr</author><text>Why would evolution &amp;quot;tweak the obvious knobs&amp;quot; for something well beyond our breeding age 100-500-5000 years ago?&lt;p&gt;The best argument is that those same tweaks affect child bearing&amp;#x2F;survival performance in the same direction. Since sickle cell and other diseases were selected for, it seems unlikely all of them go the same way.</text></item><item><author>api</author><text>Life extension in humans is difficult because we are already long lived for a high metabolism large mammal. That means evolution has probably already tweaked the obvious knobs.&lt;p&gt;It doesn’t mean it can’t be done, just that it is not likely to be as easy as pushing a few chemical buttons or turning something on or off.</text></item><item><author>Kalanos</author><text>Thanks for the review.&lt;p&gt;Surprised not to see any mention of interleukins and metformin. [Warning - metformin linked to birth defects]&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;s41586-024-07701-9&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.nature.com&amp;#x2F;articles&amp;#x2F;s41586-024-07701-9&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;The more I learn about molecular biology&amp;#x2F;oncology, the more skeptical I am of longevity research. The pathways are usually broad hub genes that shouldn&amp;#x27;t be touched. E.g. Myc is an oncogene. As a rule of thumb, any time you see &amp;quot;reprogramming,&amp;quot; be skeptical.&lt;p&gt;Gene therapy for neurodegenerative diseases should not be considered longevity.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>A primer on the current state of longevity research</title><url>https://www.owlposting.com/p/some-questions-and-answers-i-had</url></story>