5 ms·

> Also the cells changing need to take a break to consolidate what they have adapted to (brain plasticity). I feel like this has got to be a problem solvable b

> Also the cells changing need to take a break to consolidate what they have adapted to (brain plasticity). I feel like this has got to be a problem solvable by throwing money at it. Not as is, most likely, but if we had evolved without caloric restriction there would be some kind of more complicated support structure which handles all that.

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
This feels like it may fall into the realm of "I think if we just throw money at it we could solve it" problems that you can't actually solve by throwing money at.
- ravi-delia 4y ago
  Metaphorical money thrown at evolution several million years ago, namely calories. You were built on a budget, just because it's still better than anything we could make doesn't mean it's the best evolution can do under lesser constraints
mywacaday 4y ago
If we had no calorie restriction why would we have evolved.
- rNULLED 4y ago
  underrated perspective
- isaacgreyed 4y ago
  Something else would end up scarcer
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  In an energy-rich environment, evolution should select for faster and faster reproductive rates.
  - shard 4y ago
    Perhaps so, but humans are reproducing later and having fewer offspring, so there are more variables than just energy.
    - bearmode 4y ago
      Environmental stresses are well-known to cause reproduction rates to plummet. That can be because of a lack of available food, but it can really be any sort of stress.
- lagadu 4y ago
  That's true, we evolved to adapt to calorie scarcity but our environment has changed: calories are now abundant but our system is still optimized for scarcity despite that constraint no longer existing. I'm sure in a few thousand years that'll go away (possibly faster, as we get better at manipulating our own biology) but the status quo is that we're poorly adapted to our environments, energy-wise.
- sebastianconcpt 4y ago
  Excellent point. But note that calories scarcity is a simplistic model. What I'm trying to show with what I was saying, is that there are stocks of scarce molecules imposing performance limits too.
PeterisP 4y ago
If we had evolved without caloric restriction in an "easy" energy-rich environment where there's less competition for scarce energy and thus complexity and intelligence aren't absolutely mandatory to acquire it, evolution should select for faster reproductive rates by simply sacrificing complexity, not building some kind of more complicated support structure.
- ravi-delia 4y ago
  Well yeah, obviously. It's just a dream after all

SketchySeaBeast 4y ago

This feels like it may fall into the realm of "I think if we just throw money at it we could solve it" problems that you can't actually solve by throwing money at.

ravi-delia 4y ago
Metaphorical money thrown at evolution several million years ago, namely calories. You were built on a budget, just because it's still better than anything we could make doesn't mean it's the best evolution can do under lesser constraints

mywacaday 4y ago

If we had no calorie restriction why would we have evolved.

rNULLED 4y ago
underrated perspective
isaacgreyed 4y ago
Something else would end up scarcer
ProjectArcturis 4y ago
In an energy-rich environment, evolution should select for faster and faster reproductive rates.
- shard 4y ago
  Perhaps so, but humans are reproducing later and having fewer offspring, so there are more variables than just energy.
  - bearmode 4y ago
    Environmental stresses are well-known to cause reproduction rates to plummet. That can be because of a lack of available food, but it can really be any sort of stress.
lagadu 4y ago
That's true, we evolved to adapt to calorie scarcity but our environment has changed: calories are now abundant but our system is still optimized for scarcity despite that constraint no longer existing. I'm sure in a few thousand years that'll go away (possibly faster, as we get better at manipulating our own biology) but the status quo is that we're poorly adapted to our environments, energy-wise.
sebastianconcpt 4y ago
Excellent point. But note that calories scarcity is a simplistic model. What I'm trying to show with what I was saying, is that there are stocks of scarce molecules imposing performance limits too.

PeterisP 4y ago

If we had evolved without caloric restriction in an "easy" energy-rich environment where there's less competition for scarce energy and thus complexity and intelligence aren't absolutely mandatory to acquire it, evolution should select for faster reproductive rates by simply sacrificing complexity, not building some kind of more complicated support structure.

ravi-delia 4y ago
Well yeah, obviously. It's just a dream after all