3 ms·

Evolution (and survival) only cares about if you survive to reproduce. So human evolution (and survival) matters only until 14-40, and humans aren't dying of sk

Evolution (and survival) only cares about if you survive to reproduce. So human evolution (and survival) matters only until 14-40, and humans aren't dying of skin cancer at exceedingly large numbers at those ages. If we pushed back the reproductive age we'd eventually evolve to live longer (though would have more people dying without reproducing first). This experiment has been successfully shown in fruit flies.

Denvercoder9 5y ago
> So human evolution (and survival) matters only until 14-40 Not necessarily. I'd imagine it helps the survival chances of your grandchildren if you're around when they're growing up (though it probably mattered less back when children were raised by communities than in the nuclear families we have nowadays).
- notahacker 5y ago
  Sure, it would have helped homo sapiens even more if more of their children had lived to childbearing ages (if, say, they'd discovered antibiotics a few millenia earlier or evolved more natural immunities). But the infant survival rates back then were enough to ensure the species survived, just like the smaller fraction of the population struck down by skin cancer every year wasn't enough to put evolutionary pressure on us to develop resistance to it or develop sunlight avoidance traits. Evolution doesn't guarantee that every possible beneficial adaptation takes place.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  > I'd imagine it helps the survival chances of your grandchildren if you're around when they're growing up Keeping toddlers from walking off a cliff (and the other things unsupervised toddlers will do to kill themselves) is probably why he said 14-40 and not 14-30.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
yarcob 5y ago
> human evolution (and survival) matters only until 14-40 I just don't think that's true. I think grand parents being around was important for human survival. If it wasn't, if all that mattered was having the most kids, then why would women go through menopause? Wouldn't it be better if women continued having children until they die? I think it makes sense that young people have kids (the sooner the better, faster evolution and less chance of DNA degradation) Then they should live as long as possible to help raise their grandkids to ensure their genes survive.
- ac29 5y ago
  > If it wasn't, if all that mattered was having the most kids, then why would women go through menopause? Wouldn't it be better if women continued having children until they die? Given that the risk of birth defects goes up significantly the older a woman is, menopause is probably evolutionarily advantageous.

Denvercoder9 5y ago

> So human evolution (and survival) matters only until 14-40 Not necessarily. I'd imagine it helps the survival chances of your grandchildren if you're around when they're growing up (though it probably mattered less back when children were raised by communities than in the nuclear families we have nowadays).

notahacker 5y ago
Sure, it would have helped homo sapiens even more if more of their children had lived to childbearing ages (if, say, they'd discovered antibiotics a few millenia earlier or evolved more natural immunities). But the infant survival rates back then were enough to ensure the species survived, just like the smaller fraction of the population struck down by skin cancer every year wasn't enough to put evolutionary pressure on us to develop resistance to it or develop sunlight avoidance traits. Evolution doesn't guarantee that every possible beneficial adaptation takes place.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
> I'd imagine it helps the survival chances of your grandchildren if you're around when they're growing up Keeping toddlers from walking off a cliff (and the other things unsupervised toddlers will do to kill themselves) is probably why he said 14-40 and not 14-30.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

yarcob 5y ago

> human evolution (and survival) matters only until 14-40 I just don't think that's true. I think grand parents being around was important for human survival. If it wasn't, if all that mattered was having the most kids, then why would women go through menopause? Wouldn't it be better if women continued having children until they die? I think it makes sense that young people have kids (the sooner the better, faster evolution and less chance of DNA degradation) Then they should live as long as possible to help raise their grandkids to ensure their genes survive.

ac29 5y ago
> If it wasn't, if all that mattered was having the most kids, then why would women go through menopause? Wouldn't it be better if women continued having children until they die? Given that the risk of birth defects goes up significantly the older a woman is, menopause is probably evolutionarily advantageous.