3 ms·
The question you're asking there is one of human morality and politics rather than evolution or technological feasibility. I'll tell you what solution evolutio
by Symmetry 11y ago
The question you're asking there is one of human morality and politics rather than evolution or technological feasibility. I'll tell you what solution evolution "wants" to pick: population increase, starvation, and may the fittest win. Obviously that's not something you or I would want but it's why evolution doesn't have any problem with creatures living indefinitely.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- alejohausner 11y agoWell, I wasn't trying to make a moral argument, although I guess the way I phrased things might suggest otherwise. Heck, I just have this strong intuition that there's a countdown timer inside us, which will lead us inexorably to death. Maybe I can't argue convincingly for it, but I feel there have to be evolutionary reasons for why such a timer must exist, and the idea of making room for young organisms seemed like a fruitful way towards an explanation. So here's a last and final argument for such a countdown timer: there are no immortal species in nature. That's more of an "existence proof" than a "constructive proof", but it does strongly argue that there is a reason why death is necessary (without providing the reason, for I can't think of one that will persuade you).
- ItsDeathball 11y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Organisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality#Organis... There are actually a few immortal or extremely long-lived species in nature. Evolution still acts upon them because there are other selection forces at work, like not being eaten by predators.