3 ms·

I agree with the premise, these reports seem to focus on the act of passing your genetic material to a child as the final act. Anyone who has had kids knows th

I agree with the premise, these reports seem to focus on the act of passing your genetic material to a child as the final act. Anyone who has had kids knows that passing on your genes is the easy part, raising them to be productive members of society who will in turn procreate takes a long time and you continue to influence and guide them. So something that shortens your lifespan would reduce the survival edge of the remaining offspring compared to a group with that guiding influence. This is a pretty clear social structure in humans. I understand not all or even most animals have that same social structure. Can someone explain to me why they would assume remaining alive after you dump off your genetic material would be neutral? (from an evolutionary perspective)

tempestn 9y ago
This is addressed in the article: Why these late-acting mutations might lower a person’s genetic fitness — their ability to reproduce and spread their genes — remains an open question. The authors suggest that for men, it could be that those who live longer can have more children, but this is unlikely to be the whole story. So scientists are considering two other explanations for why longevity is important. First, parents surviving into old age in good health can care for their children and grandchildren, increasing the later generations’ chances of surviving and reproducing. This is sometimes known as the ‘grandmother hypothesis’, and may explain why humans tend to live long after menopause.