4 ms·

There's a premise here that deserves scrutiny -- that longevity (beyond reproductive age) has evolutionary benefits. Nature may well prefer that older individua

There's a premise here that deserves scrutiny -- that longevity (beyond reproductive age) has evolutionary benefits. Nature may well prefer that older individuals die off.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
longevity has many evolutionary benefits, the biggest one being that older generation can pass on survival-essential knowledge and skill to the younger generations. this process exists not only in humans, but in most animals, and the improvement is continuous, it never stops. furthermore, the longest-surviving individuals (with the tightest bonds) are able to pass on the most survival knowledge to their descendants, creating an exponential effect.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  A great example that's relevant today is that people in the West over 60 yo remember society pre-Social Marxism. There's a lot of their Youtube videos on how successful families are constructed for the benefit of individuals and society, which is a "lost art" today. Suzanne Venker (Traditional Family Counselling) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt29HUEqVF2pB5yb_KZRebg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt29HUEqVF2pB5yb_KZRebg
- gmfawcett 6y ago
  Fair point. But it has evolutionary disadvantages, too. If food scarcity has been a challenge across evolutionary scales (which seems reasonable), then the utility function might prioritize scarce resources for the reproductively fit. My point is that it's challenging to make a watertight argument that "we should do X, because evolution suggests that we should."
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    > Fair point. But it has evolutionary disadvantages, too. If food scarcity has been a challenge across evolutionary scales (which seems reasonable), then the utility function might prioritize scarce resources for the reproductively fit. That's typically how it has been prioritized, if food scarcity was an issue. > My point is that it's challenging to make a watertight argument that "we should do X, because evolution suggests that we should." Sure, but most of the time I would bet dollars to donuts that environmental variables we evolved in will be better for us than new ones, just like in well-aged software time-tested inputs are more likely to work than new stuff you've never tried before.

There's a premise here that deserves scrutiny -- that longevity (beyond reproductive age) has evolutionary benefits. Nature may well prefer that older individuals die off.

forgotmypw17 6y ago

longevity has many evolutionary benefits, the biggest one being that older generation can pass on survival-essential knowledge and skill to the younger generations. this process exists not only in humans, but in most animals, and the improvement is continuous, it never stops. furthermore, the longest-surviving individuals (with the tightest bonds) are able to pass on the most survival knowledge to their descendants, creating an exponential effect.

redis_mlc 6y ago
A great example that's relevant today is that people in the West over 60 yo remember society pre-Social Marxism. There's a lot of their Youtube videos on how successful families are constructed for the benefit of individuals and society, which is a "lost art" today. Suzanne Venker (Traditional Family Counselling) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt29HUEqVF2pB5yb_KZRebg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt29HUEqVF2pB5yb_KZRebg
gmfawcett 6y ago
Fair point. But it has evolutionary disadvantages, too. If food scarcity has been a challenge across evolutionary scales (which seems reasonable), then the utility function might prioritize scarce resources for the reproductively fit. My point is that it's challenging to make a watertight argument that "we should do X, because evolution suggests that we should."
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  > Fair point. But it has evolutionary disadvantages, too. If food scarcity has been a challenge across evolutionary scales (which seems reasonable), then the utility function might prioritize scarce resources for the reproductively fit. That's typically how it has been prioritized, if food scarcity was an issue. > My point is that it's challenging to make a watertight argument that "we should do X, because evolution suggests that we should." Sure, but most of the time I would bet dollars to donuts that environmental variables we evolved in will be better for us than new ones, just like in well-aged software time-tested inputs are more likely to work than new stuff you've never tried before.