3 ms·

Limited lifespans have nothing to do with resource constraints. There is just nothing to select for longer lifespans beyond the time it takes to reproduce.

• jomamaxx 10y ago
  "There is just nothing to select for longer lifespans beyond the time it takes to reproduce." Definitely there is. If humans spent a long time learning, and were more productive and fruitful in their later years, developing more intelligent systems, they would theoretically out-compete a civilization that wasn't able to develop such advanced skills and learning - especially related to passing on information. The missing issue not obvious in genes is the amount of cultural information and learning passed on. A genetically 'superior' race of beings (faster, smarter, more disease resistant) would surely be 'beaten' by a group of lesser beings who were able to cooperate, learn, cognize, master tools, pass on wisdom etc...
  • rubberstamp 10y ago
    This is the same conclusion I came to as well thinking about stuff. There are a lot of genes that we don't know what it does. Unless evolutionary feature development is throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, there definitely is information (not just physical description of how features should be and how it should function, but many valuable data as well) passing from parents to siblings via genes. I came across two some orphaned puppies. They grew up and knew how to do certain stuff and I didn't see anyone teaching them those stuff.
• cousin_it 10y ago
  I think Animats might have a point. If each generation is more fit than the previous one on average, then it makes sense for a selfish gene to make its older carriers die rather than compete for resources with younger carriers. No idea about the size of the effect, though.