Tag Archives: environment

How Genetics and Environment Influence Our Lifespan: A Comprehensive Look

Posted on by
Reply

Twin Studies Reveal Genetic Influence on Lifespan

Half Point/iStockphoto/Getty Images

In developed and stable nations, individuals’ lifespans are likely influenced not only by environmental factors and lifestyle choices but also by the genetic variations inherited from their parents. This conclusion arises from a recent analysis of data from a Danish-Swedish twin study.

For those residing in such countries, it’s not surprising to learn that genetics may account for half of the variation in lifespan, while environmental factors comprise the other half. However, earlier twin studies conducted decades ago suggested that genes explained only about 25% of the variation in human lifespans.

“The proportion shifts slightly, with genetics playing a more significant role while the environmental impact reduces a bit,” stated Joris Dieren from Leiden University Medical Center, Netherlands. “Nonetheless, environmental factors still constitute a crucial element, accounting for at least 50%.”

Heritability measures the extent to which variations in a specific trait arise from genetic influences as opposed to environmental factors. The research team emphasizes that the heritability of any trait isn’t a constant value applicable universally; rather, it pertains to specific populations in distinct environments.

Height in wheat serves as a classic illustration. If seeds are planted in a flat, consistent field, nearly all height variations will be a result of genetics. Conversely, in a more diverse terrain, most height variation will stem from factors like soil, light, and water conditions. The heritability of height varies significantly in these two contexts.

To estimate human trait heritability, geneticists often compare twins raised in the same environment to those raised apart. In this study, Dieren and his colleagues primarily referenced twins born in Sweden or Denmark between 1870 and 1935.

Excluding accidental deaths and infections, the heritability of longevity spiked to approximately 50%, compared to age-related diseases like heart conditions.

This aligns more with our existing knowledge about aging in animals, as Dieren noted. “I believe the figure is more realistically closer to 50% than 25%.”

“This paper evaluates the heritability of maximum lifespan under optimal conditions, assuming only age-related processes are at play. This is a much narrower focus than overall lifespan,” emphasized Peter Ellis from the University of Kent, UK. It’s unsurprising that this more specific question has a higher heritability rate, he pointed out.

Joao Pedro de Magalhães, a professor at the University of Birmingham, UK, concurs: “The findings are entirely expected.”

This research indicates the potential presence of multiple genetic mutations influencing variations in human lifespans, with the identification of such mutations possibly aiding in the development of longevity-enhancing drugs. Yet, few have been discovered to date.

“The mystery remains as to why so few genes related to human longevity have been identified,” stated de Magalhães.

A significant challenge exists due to the nature of studies like the UK Biobank; many participants are still alive, resulting in insufficient numbers for reliable statistical analysis. Dieren also believes this complexity lies within the genetic factors themselves.

For instance, Ellis pointed out that there could be trade-offs, where a genetic variant that reduces autoimmune disease risk might also impair infection-fighting abilities. This suggests that the researchers’ assumption linking infection-related deaths to lifespan may not be entirely accurate.

De Magalhães added that the role of genetics appears significantly different when contrasting species rather than individual differences within a single species. “Even with the mouse genome, you wouldn’t expect a lifespan beyond three or four years,” he noted. “In stark contrast, the bowhead whale genome can result in lifespans exceeding two centuries.”

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Over 1,000 Amazon Employees Raise Concerns About AI’s Impact on Jobs and the Environment

Posted on by
Reply

An open letter signed by over 1,000 Amazon employees has raised “serious concerns” regarding AI development, criticizing the company’s “all costs justified and warp speed” approach. It warns that the implications of such powerful technologies will negatively affect “democracies, our jobs, and our planet.”

Released on Wednesday, this letter was signed anonymously by Amazon employees and comes a month after the company’s announcement about mass layoffs intended to ramp up AI integration within its operations.

The signatories represent a diverse range of roles, including engineers, product managers, and warehouse staff.

Echoing widespread concerns across the tech industry, the letter also gained support from over 2,400 employees at other companies such as Meta, Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

This letter outlines demands aimed at Amazon regarding workplace and environmental issues. Employees are urging the company to provide clean energy for all data centers, ensure that AI-driven products and services do not facilitate “violence, surveillance, and mass deportation,” and establish a working group composed of non-administrators. “They bear significant responsibility for overarching objectives within the organization, the application of AI, the implementation of AI-related layoffs, and addressing the collateral impacts of AI, such as environmental effects.”

This letter is a product of an advocacy group of Amazon employees advocating for climate justice. One worker involved in drafting the letter shared that employees felt compelled to speak out due to adverse experiences with AI tools at work and broader environmental concerns stemming from the AI boom. The employee emphasized the desire for more responsible methods in the development, deployment, and use of technology.

“I signed this letter because executives are increasingly fixated on arbitrary productivity metrics and quotas, using AI to justify pushing themselves and their colleagues to work longer hours or handle more projects with tighter deadlines,” stated a senior software engineer who preferred to remain anonymous.

Climate Change Goals

The letter claims that Amazon is “abandoning climate goals for AI development.”

Like its competitors in the generative AI space, Amazon is heavily investing in new data centers to support its AI tools, which are more resource-intensive and demand significant power. The company plans to allocate $150 billion over the next 15 years for data centers, and has recently disclosed an investment of $15 billion for a data center in northern Indiana and $3 billion for centers in Mississippi.

The letter reports that Amazon’s annual emissions have seen an “approximately 35% increase since 2019,” despite the company’s promises. The report cautions that many of Amazon’s AI infrastructure investments will be in areas where energy demands compel utilities to maintain coal plants or establish new gas facilities.

“‘AI’ is being used as a buzzword to mask a reckless investment in energy-hungry computer chips, which threaten worker power, accumulate resources, and supposedly save us from climate issues,” noted an Amazon customer researcher who requested to remain anonymous. “It would be fantastic to build AI that combats climate change! However, that’s not where Amazon’s billions are directed. They are investing in data centers that squander fossil fuel energy for AI aimed at monitoring, exploiting, and extracting profit from their customers, communities, and government entities.”

In a statement to the Guardian, Amazon spokesperson Brad Glasser refuted the employees’ claims and highlighted the company’s climate initiatives. “Alongside being a leading data center operator in efficiency, we have been the largest corporate buyer of renewable energy globally for five consecutive years, with over 600 projects globally,” Glasser stated. “We have also made substantial investments in nuclear energy through our current facilities and emerging SMR technology. These efforts are tangible actions demonstrating our commitment to achieving net-zero carbon across our global operations by 2040.”

AI for Enhanced Productivity

The letter also includes stringent demands regarding AI’s role within Amazon, arising from challenges employees are facing.

Three Amazon employees who spoke with the Guardian claimed that the company was pressuring them to leverage AI tools to boost productivity. “I received a message from my direct boss,” shared a software engineer with over two years at Amazon, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, “about using AI in coding, writing, and general daily tasks to enhance efficiency, stressing that if I don’t actively use AI, I risk falling behind.”

The employee added that not long ago, their manager indicated they were “expected to double their work output due to AI tools,” expressing concern that the anticipated production levels would require fewer personnel and that “the tools simply aren’t bridging the gap.”

Customer researchers shared similar feelings. “I personally feel pressure to incorporate AI into my role, and I’ve heard from numerous colleagues who feel the same pressure…”

“Meanwhile, there is no dialogue about the direct repercussions for us as workers, from unprecedented layoffs to unrealistic output expectations.”

A senior software engineer highlighted that the introduction of AI has led to suboptimal outcomes. The most common scenario involves employees being compelled to use agent code generation tools. “Recently, I worked on a project that was merely cleaned up after an experienced engineer attempted to use AI to generate code for a complex assignment,” the employee revealed. “Unfortunately, none of it functioned as intended, and he had no idea why. In fact, we would have been better off starting from scratch.”

Amazon did not respond to questions regarding employee critiques of its AI workplace policies.

Employees stressed that they are not inherently opposed to AI but wish to see it developed sustainably and with input from those who are directly involved in its creation and application. “I believe Amazon is using AI to justify its control over local resources like water and energy, and it also legitimizes its power over its employees, who face increasing surveillance, accelerated workloads, and implicit termination threats,” a senior software engineer asserted. “There exists a workplace culture that discourages open discussions about the flaws of AI, and one of the objectives of this letter is to show colleagues that many of us share these sentiments and that an alternative route is achievable.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

The Doctor Says This Is the Ideal Sleep Environment.

Posted on by
Reply

Many theories exist around the “ideal” sleeping position. One common belief suggests that sleeping on the left side aids digestion.

This notion stems from basic anatomical structure. The stomach is positioned on the left, and its outlet (pylorus) tilts slightly to the right, leading into the small intestine.

Some studies indicate that sleeping on the left side could help decrease acid reflux compared to sleeping on the right, as this position may prevent stomach acid from rising into the esophagus.

If you experience reflux or heartburn, it may be worth experimenting with this position.

That said, digestion occurs regardless of your sleeping posture. So unless you have a specific digestive issue like reflux, your position likely won’t make a significant impact.

Additionally, sleep involves more than just digestion. Sleeping on your back is often recommended to alleviate pressure on the neck and hips. However, this position may contribute to snoring and sleep apnea as it can cause the tongue to fall backward and partially obstruct the airways.

Side sleeping is the most prevalent choice, as it tends to keep airways open, reducing snoring and sleep apnea.

Pregnant women frequently sleep on the left side to enhance blood flow to the baby and alleviate pressure on the liver, though sleeping on the right side is usually acceptable as well.

For those experiencing back or pelvic pain (especially during pregnancy), placing a pillow between your knees can help reduce pressure on the lower back.

So, what is the best sleeping position?

In the end, there is no single best position for everyone. While left-side sleeping may offer benefits for reflux and pregnancy, comfort, spinal support, and the quality of sleep should take precedence for most individuals.

Honestly, no matter how meticulously you position yourself at bedtime, you often wake up drooling on your pillow in a completely different stance!

This article answers the query posed by Tim Hatley of Lincoln: “What is the best place to sleep?”

Please contact us to submit your questions at Question @sciencefocus.com or Message Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram Page (please include your name and location).

Explore our ultimate Fun fact and more fascinating science pages.

Read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

How a 4-Day Work Week Benefits Your Health and the Environment

Posted on by
Reply

A four-day workweek can significantly enhance both your mental and physical well-being, which in turn boosts your performance. This is supported by a recent study conducted by researchers from the US and Ireland.

The most exciting part? Research published in the journal Natural Human Behavior ensured that participants did not experience any wage cuts during the trial. This is crucial, as pay reductions can lead to increased stress. Participants managed to maintain their typical productivity levels while experiencing fewer sleep disturbances and reduced fatigue, thanks to an improved work environment.

“Globally, we observe trends of burnout, long hours, and inadequate personal time for employees and their families—this issue is prevalent not only in high-income countries but also in many low- and middle-income nations,” noted study author Wenfang, an associate professor of sociology at Boston University in the United States, as stated in BBC Science Focus.

“Our four-day workweek could serve as a potential solution for rethinking work structures that not only benefit employees but society at large.”

The sociologists from Boston College and University College Dublin conducted a six-month study involving approximately 3,000 employees from 141 organizations across Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the US. Participants were offered reduced working hours ranging from 1-4 hours, 5-7 hours, or 8 hours.

Over the six-month period, employee wellness was evaluated across four categories: burnout, job satisfaction, overall psychological health, and physical health—key indicators of mortality risk.

Concurrently, they compared the outcomes for 285 employees from 12 companies that implemented reduced work hours with those who maintained the traditional workweek.

Significant health advantages were noted for employees in all three reduced-hour groups, particularly in terms of burnout and job satisfaction. Those who cut their working hours by eight saw the most substantial benefits. Furthermore, 90% of the companies that participated continued their four-day workweek after the trial concluded.

Globally, initiatives are underway to assess the effects of shorter workweeks on employee health and organizational productivity. One notable program is the 4DWG initiative, which has seen participation from 375 companies worldwide, advocating for a six-hour workday or a 20% reduction in total hours.

A potential limitation of this study is that it relied on companies volunteering to take part, primarily involving small businesses in English-speaking countries. Future studies aim to include government-sponsored trials for more randomized assessments.

Additionally, the researchers are exploring the environmental impact of a four-day workweek, as some employees have volunteered to monitor their carbon footprints.

Wen posits that both workers and employers could benefit environmentally, particularly with decreased pollution from commuting. She stated: “Countries adopting shorter working hours often report improved environmental outcomes.”

Read more:

About our experts

Wen Huang is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology at Boston College, USA. Her research has been published in journals such as Natural Human Behavior, Social Forces, Jobs and Occupations, and Advances in Life Course Research.

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

Navigating the 2024 Venture Environment: Strategic Insights for Technology Founders from Seed to Series A

Posted on by
Reply

mike cardamom
Contributor

Mike Cardamone is CEO and Managing Partner. forum venturesAt , we’re focused on developing the Forum’s investment strategy, with a mission to make the B2B SaaS journey easier, more accessible, and more successful for early-stage founders.

I do not have any questions 2023 was a tough year for the venture and technology ecosystem. Carta revealed that the total number of funding rounds and total investments have decreased dramatically. 64% decrease in Q1 2023 Total investment was down 86% from its peak in Q4 2021. Forum Ventures has invested in more than 100 B2B SaaS companies across accelerators and seeds this year, and we’ve seen first-hand how difficult the funding environment can be for founders at every stage of this market. funds. Michael Cardamone, his CEO and managing partner at Forum Ventures, spoke to up-and-coming executives about the state of the market, saying, “This has been the most difficult to raise money in a long time.”

in recent reports, Forum Ventures surveyed 70 funds and 167 closed pre-seed and seed funds between January and October 2023 to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of the early-stage B2B SaaS investment landscape. We analyzed the round data.

Key findings from this report include:

  • Data across these rounds shows a 10% decrease from the same survey conducted last year, with 75% of respondents citing a decrease in valuations from 2022 onwards.
  • The average valuation at pre-seed was $9 million post, and the same for pre-revenue until the ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue) for the entire round for which data was collected was $250,000.
  • Companies with an ARR of $250,000 or more raised at an average valuation cap of $15 million.

seed round

As a founder, manage your cash flow wisely, convince top talent to join your company, and focus on building the product your customers want.

While seed valuations remain stable from 2022 to 2023, it has become more difficult to achieve the traction needed for these rounds, which can create false expectations for founders. In 2020-2021, it is relatively common for $3-5 million seed rounds to close with little if any traction, depending on the space and founder. They were typically completed at a valuation of $12 million to $25 million. ‘Background.

While there are exceptions, today’s market is looking for big traction early on, and companies typically need $250,000 to $1 million in ARR to raise a $3 million+ seed round, and these rounds is typically completed with about 20% to 25% dilution (i.e. $12 million post $3 million, $1 million to $15 million post, or $16 million to $20 million post $4 million). The hurdles to raising an institutional seed round are much higher, and founders and companies often need to prove more of a track record in today’s market than ever before. This dynamic means that many founders must first raise a pre-seed round to reach those milestones, and thus multiple rounds to reach Series A. To do.

Source: techcrunch.com