4 ms·

From an evolutionary perspective, I think we can at least say that absence of death doesn't confer a selective advantage, else it would have appeared and radiat

From an evolutionary perspective, I think we can at least say that absence of death doesn't confer a selective advantage, else it would have appeared and radiated in several billion years of biological evolution. It might even be that death provides selective advantage(s), which would account for its being a nearly universal feature of known life. A "pre-programmed death" mechanism would be consistent with this.

echelon 5y ago
> A "pre-programmed death" mechanism would be consistent with this. We haven't found this mechanism in humans. Cancer and heart disease simply don't impact child rearing. It requires a great deal of optimization to rejuvenate cells after injury and simultaneously tamp down on uncontrolled proliferation (cancer). It's an extremely complex system. The evolutionary gradient to optimize this is probably steep, and we haven't climbed it since our form is more than good enough. (There are billions of us.) People cite tortoises, but these animals have a slow metabolism. They don't eat a wide variety of things. They don't have many enemies. They're not burning very fast. We're not comparable.
- ridgeguy 5y ago
  >Cancer and heart disease simply don't impact child rearing. I'm not sure of that. There's data-supported discussion of possible contribution to offspring survival by grandparents [1]. If true, that would disclose a fitness benefit of familial long lifespan. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-much-did-grandmothers-influence-human-evolution-180976665/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-much-did-g... [not a peer-reviewed primary source, but a reasonable commentary on the matter.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Yes, but "in the wild", length of a human generation was much shorter than today. It still is in some developing countries. People would start reproducing around 17, so around 40-45, you already would be a grandparent with multiple grandkids. This is still early for cancer or heart disease, unless you inherited some unlucky genes.

echelon 5y ago

> A "pre-programmed death" mechanism would be consistent with this. We haven't found this mechanism in humans. Cancer and heart disease simply don't impact child rearing. It requires a great deal of optimization to rejuvenate cells after injury and simultaneously tamp down on uncontrolled proliferation (cancer). It's an extremely complex system. The evolutionary gradient to optimize this is probably steep, and we haven't climbed it since our form is more than good enough. (There are billions of us.) People cite tortoises, but these animals have a slow metabolism. They don't eat a wide variety of things. They don't have many enemies. They're not burning very fast. We're not comparable.

ridgeguy 5y ago
>Cancer and heart disease simply don't impact child rearing. I'm not sure of that. There's data-supported discussion of possible contribution to offspring survival by grandparents [1]. If true, that would disclose a fitness benefit of familial long lifespan. [1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-much-did-grandmothers-influence-human-evolution-180976665/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-much-did-g... [not a peer-reviewed primary source, but a reasonable commentary on the matter.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Yes, but "in the wild", length of a human generation was much shorter than today. It still is in some developing countries. People would start reproducing around 17, so around 40-45, you already would be a grandparent with multiple grandkids. This is still early for cancer or heart disease, unless you inherited some unlucky genes.