3 ms·
>Since evolution only "cares" about you to the point where you bear children and raise them, what are the chances that it engineered ALL those systems to last F
by psychoslave 6y ago
>Since evolution only "cares" about you to the point where you bear children and raise them, what are the chances that it engineered ALL those systems to last FOREVER?
This sentence turn things into such an anthropomorphic way, to the point that the concept of evolution en engineering don't make sense anymore.
In the (scientific) evolution theories, evolution doesn't "engineer" life. It shapes life forms by environment constraints alone. And these constraints are in no appearing way optimized for fostering life, which appear more like an accidental byproduct. No conceptual framework nor any concern for conscious parsimony of implementation or sense of elegance are underlying evolution forces.
Indefinite youthfulness span would sure seems impressive. But it is nothing compared to other challenges that should be overcome to attain an exceptional life span: an unswerving immune system, not being killed by any domestic accident, human social violence or natural catastrophe, and not suicide yourself over psychological disorders.
- waltpad 6y agoI don't understand your first argument. My feeling is that you got side-tracked by the use of the word "engineer" because it shouldn't be used in its literal meaning, but was it the intent of GP? There are scientific papers, BTW, which engineer solutions by evolutionary algorithms. Is that evolution or engineering? Clearly there's an engineering setup, made of all the constraints you speak about for the evolution process to take place, and that evolution process is also defined artificially, yet just like the real stuff, it follows a set of rules, so where's the divide? Why nature couldn't be engineering life with evolution, but humans could? Your last point OTOH is quite relevant.