Does a slower metabolism partially explain greater longevity in humans compared to other apes?
What I'm getting at of course is what are the prevailing theories as to what physiological differences have allowed humans live so much longer than their cousins, and if there is any reason to believe that could be enhanced further with enough medical/genetic understanding and precision in the future.
Besides the slower metabolism, the best idea I have heard is that humans literally develop more slowly, and our increased longevity may primarily be due to our elongated period of development. We essentially added 20ish years (childhood). If we matured in 2 years, we wouldn't be living longer than chimpanzees in captivity.
As I have studied biology, a common theme has been that there seems to be no shortcuts. All you can do is live worse than ideally. You can't live better than ideally. There is no opposite to an infection, like something that will enhance you above normal function. There seems to be a genetic maximum balance. You can't add something to the system to improve longevity, because the ideal biology is one where the ideal biochemical balances exist. Disrupting equilibrium is seemingly never going to work.
Having said that, clearly if a human can live longer than other apes, in theory there should be a future genetic version of a human that could live longer than humans today. The question is what would that look like, and what processes would allow it? According to the two above proposed theories, a human that lived to the age of 150 might have an extremely long childhood and only reach maturity at age 60, or they might move around like sloths in order to have a very slow metabolism.
Thoughts Jeff?
