3 ms·

Is immortality a genetic advantage? I'd imagine it could create a lot of infighting.

TimPC 3y ago
I bet societies without immortality progress faster than societies with immortality socially. A large portion of opinion change occurs intergenerationally with old views dying off, some people change their opinions on major values over time but far fewer people do than we like to think. I think for example it would be far harder to get things like gay marriage passed if people born in 1000 AD were still around today.
- boringg 3y ago
  I think the definition of progress is a key consideration here.
- rowanG077 3y ago
  I don't buy that argument. Just look at the frankly staggering culteral change in the last 20 years. The majority of people alive 20 years ago are alive now. And it still was possible to transform the entire cultural landscape.
  - TimPC 3y ago
    An entirely new generation of people became voting age and that generation is quite progressive on average. A second generation of fairly progressive people aged from unlikely voters to likely voters. And we had 20 years of people worth of deaths with many of those deaths concentrated in an elderly conservative generation. That has huge impacts on issues like gay marriage. Yes, some people did change their minds but not nearly as many as we like to think.
    - rowanG077 3y ago
      You don't go into my main point. The majority of people existing then exist now. The cultural shift is very thorough. Even if all new people are super progressive and all old people are super conservative it does not explain the shift. There must be a significant group of the majority which has internalized these cultural changes.
midoridensha 3y ago
Immortality is a big genetic disadvantage when you want the species to be able to evolve and adapt to its environment. This might have something to do with why most species have limited lifespans. Humans aren't bound by their environment any more though: they can actively control and change their environment, and their own biology. Humans stopped evolving by natural selection ages ago, so there's no good genetic reason to not explore technological means of extending lifespans.

I bet societies without immortality progress faster than societies with immortality socially. A large portion of opinion change occurs intergenerationally with old views dying off, some people change their opinions on major values over time but far fewer people do than we like to think. I think for example it would be far harder to get things like gay marriage passed if people born in 1000 AD were still around today.

boringg 3y ago
I think the definition of progress is a key consideration here.
rowanG077 3y ago
I don't buy that argument. Just look at the frankly staggering culteral change in the last 20 years. The majority of people alive 20 years ago are alive now. And it still was possible to transform the entire cultural landscape.
- TimPC 3y ago
  An entirely new generation of people became voting age and that generation is quite progressive on average. A second generation of fairly progressive people aged from unlikely voters to likely voters. And we had 20 years of people worth of deaths with many of those deaths concentrated in an elderly conservative generation. That has huge impacts on issues like gay marriage. Yes, some people did change their minds but not nearly as many as we like to think.
  - rowanG077 3y ago
    You don't go into my main point. The majority of people existing then exist now. The cultural shift is very thorough. Even if all new people are super progressive and all old people are super conservative it does not explain the shift. There must be a significant group of the majority which has internalized these cultural changes.

midoridensha 3y ago

Immortality is a big genetic disadvantage when you want the species to be able to evolve and adapt to its environment. This might have something to do with why most species have limited lifespans. Humans aren't bound by their environment any more though: they can actively control and change their environment, and their own biology. Humans stopped evolving by natural selection ages ago, so there's no good genetic reason to not explore technological means of extending lifespans.