3 ms·

People like to assume the natural course its somehow the best course, but its far from the true, the fact its that from a biological perspective its much easier

by notgood 10y ago

People like to assume the natural course its somehow the best course, but its far from the true, the fact its that from a biological perspective its much easier to start from scratch than to remain alive for too long; and that's how evolution works, evolution does not care much about what happens after your reproductive years have gone by (so to speak), maybe only enough so you can take care of your offspring while is needed, but thats about it. Dragon Flys only live for 4 weeks, but its enough time to reproduce and that's all "mother nature" cares about, and hardly anyone would suggest that living 4 weeks is long enough; so we need to understand our lifespans are just as arbitrary.

pdonis 10y ago
> evolution does not care much about what happens after your reproductive years have gone by So what? We humans care.
- Taek 10y ago
  The tools that made us successful as a species capped our lifespans. Technology may have changed that equation such that it makes more sense to live longer (or forever), but if immortality had made evolutionary sense up to this point we'd see a few immortals walking around. For whatever reason, hardcoded death was the more successful route for a species to take. (with some notable exceptions. I believe there are species of lobsters that won't die if you put them in the right environment, I believe a species of jellyfish as well, and then some microorganisms as well)
  - ehnto 10y ago
    Mother nature could never have awareness for the contexts in which we live now. Purely biological success knows nothing of the societies we have built and the knowledge, ability to experience, and the complex contexts within which we all live our lives. Death really doesn't make sense for an individual, and no one is really itching for Humans V1.1 so the idea of letting evolution continue doesn't make much sense either. If I could stop aging right now, I would be content with what I am capable of. Even if I die in 30 years from bus to head syndrome, I will have been fit and active for those years and that is a much better situation than slowly deteriorating to death. That is the reality medicine has given us already, and anti-aging is only the focusing of a subset of general health issues that tend to cause problems as we age. It isn't the search for the imoral and exclusive elixr of life as some people seem to claim it is.
    - Taek 10y ago
      > no one is really itching for humans v1.1 Then why are we spending so much energy trying to augment ourselves? Better exercise, better diets, better schools, less disease, etc. I would say that almost everyone can name something about themselves that they wish evolution had optimized more. (And if not evolution, then direct intervention).
      - ehnto 10y ago
        I guess that was my point, no one is expecting to enjoy the benefits of evolution (because of course they will be dead). So the argument of halting evolution or that it goes against the so far proven way to become a better species makes no sense. Better that we focus on working with what we have. Perhaps the version was number a bad way to express that though!

by notgood 10y ago

pdonis 10y ago

> evolution does not care much about what happens after your reproductive years have gone by So what? We humans care.

Taek 10y ago
The tools that made us successful as a species capped our lifespans. Technology may have changed that equation such that it makes more sense to live longer (or forever), but if immortality had made evolutionary sense up to this point we'd see a few immortals walking around. For whatever reason, hardcoded death was the more successful route for a species to take. (with some notable exceptions. I believe there are species of lobsters that won't die if you put them in the right environment, I believe a species of jellyfish as well, and then some microorganisms as well)
- ehnto 10y ago
  Mother nature could never have awareness for the contexts in which we live now. Purely biological success knows nothing of the societies we have built and the knowledge, ability to experience, and the complex contexts within which we all live our lives. Death really doesn't make sense for an individual, and no one is really itching for Humans V1.1 so the idea of letting evolution continue doesn't make much sense either. If I could stop aging right now, I would be content with what I am capable of. Even if I die in 30 years from bus to head syndrome, I will have been fit and active for those years and that is a much better situation than slowly deteriorating to death. That is the reality medicine has given us already, and anti-aging is only the focusing of a subset of general health issues that tend to cause problems as we age. It isn't the search for the imoral and exclusive elixr of life as some people seem to claim it is.
  - Taek 10y ago
    > no one is really itching for humans v1.1 Then why are we spending so much energy trying to augment ourselves? Better exercise, better diets, better schools, less disease, etc. I would say that almost everyone can name something about themselves that they wish evolution had optimized more. (And if not evolution, then direct intervention).
    - ehnto 10y ago
      I guess that was my point, no one is expecting to enjoy the benefits of evolution (because of course they will be dead). So the argument of halting evolution or that it goes against the so far proven way to become a better species makes no sense. Better that we focus on working with what we have. Perhaps the version was number a bad way to express that though!