Jonathan the 190-Year-Old Tortoise Was Photographed in 1886 and Today
petapixel.com
petapixel.com
https://www.captain-planet.net/uploads/2018/10/67241603_3621...
~~Kids~~ Tortoises these days...
https://www.captain-planet.net/400-year-old-shark-found-in-t...
They're estimated to live between 250 and 500 years.
I will not complain about my own 50 year search, then.
However your point that it is older than photo technology stands.
From the description, it seems he's spent a life eating lettuces and bonking. Not a bad 190 years.
For example, a tortoise could have lived a couple thousand years ago and lived a couple hundred years. The people of that time may have known about it over the generations. Yet, we today have no record.
"ever" is said a lot but it's hard to substantiate.
In a natural language, implicit and contextual cues are often more important (and can be lost in low bandwidth communication media like this).
> He turns 190 years old this year, making him the world’s oldest tortoise to ever live
I don't hear an implicit "known" in that. I hear a claim about Jonathan's being the oldest tortoise to ever live, and we have no idea if that's true.
Most people probably just take it at face value, or read it as implied in the limitations of the medium.
I passingly notice the discrepancy but disregard it as unimportant in this context.
You seem to deeply notice the discrepancy and complain that it isn't fixed every time, preferring always verbose precision over brevity.
In a live-in-person context, it'd be easily handled in seconds of conversation or just body language and intonation. That's all lost here.
“Attempting to transcribe spoken English? Yeah. Try transcribing that.”
Moving a return value into the EAX register yourself is more explicit; I don't see a lot of Python code doing that sort of thing.
I'm confident that some tortoise, somewhere, lived in isolated splendour longer than Jonathan. It's just a numbers game, holding 190 up against 200 million and squinting a bit.
Not to take anything away from the old fellow! He's earned his laurels.
For example, perhaps their eggs are usually eaten by a kind of crab. But once every 50 years there is a a massive hurricane that decimates the crab population. In the following spawning season, nearly all of the eggs hatch. The 150 year lifespan allows them to participate in 2-3 of these rare spawning seasons.
Since the event is rare, scientists get few chances to notice it.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-anc...
Modern medicine should be able to get more people into their 90’s but we’ll need to do a bit of research to get us to 150, for instance.
Knock out or reduce a couple of the big ones, and we'll get an idea.
It's likely there are other limits. Eg. Telomere shortening, but I don't think we can say we're hitting other limits at 120
Indeed, but we could additionally to research also do something against the most common causes of (early) death - the more people live longer, the higher the chance is that one of those who has not suffered a preventable death is the one that lives to be 150 years.
And there's a lot that we can easily tackle at relatively low cost compared to the gains (both in productivity and years-lived): incentivize people to quit or reduce alcohol and tobacco consumption, make high quality food affordable and accessible to everyone (=combat "food deserts"), reduce working hours in a first step towards 40 hours and then 30 or even 20 hours, reduce commute times, mandate vaccinations for everything that Army soldiers get across the population, increase access to cancer awareness programs and to first-class physical and mental healthcare so that cancer and other illnesses can get detected and treated early enough...
It was from an anti aging TED talk I believe.
Which makes this "feature" of COVID-19 very concerning: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8201243/
Although not mobile like Jonathan, the trees and moss are really old. Some are 12,000 years old. Still Amazing.
If there was no finite lifetime, then the benefit of physical maturity would allow older organisms to perpetually outcompete the younger ones, reducing the rate of genetic adaptation and the fitness of species overall.
Does anyone with specific knowledge know if this is true? If so, it's a little bit depressing to think that aging is simply a programmed biological process, "deliberately" degrading our bodies on a schedule and killing us off to make room for something new, rather than any sort of fundamental limitation of the underlying system.
Our culture mostly looks on old age with disdain. And indeed not just old age but any kind of aging past 25. And to be sure there are many objective downsides to being old compared to young. However one does also have the opportunity to attain knowledge and wisdom as one gets older. And that can continue until one starts to become senile, which might only start in very advanced years for many or most people!
If very process of sexual reproduction that brought humans into existence is entangled with the process of aging, there is probably no reason to think that humans (or any species that reproduces sexually) could somehow change or evolve to become immortal.
It's difficult for me to imagine something that selects for individual death per se, but I can imagine certain cellular repair mechanisms and so forth, with death at a certain age being a secondary consequence, being selected for depending on a host of factors. Evolution tends to be somewhat chaotic in that what's adaptive depends on prior evolutionary history to some extent.
I don't suppose a 200yrs 'ordinary' old human would run into any problems with memory storage.
Imagine being a software developer for 200 years? Oof you would be such a crank/skeptic having to deal with all the tech changeover
You'd literally experience steam power industrialisation progressing all the way to information tech era.
That would give you some incredible perspective.
But not mammals and "cold blooded" (ectothermic) so they are probably too different to be helpful.