> [death is] an evolved strategy to allow newer models to replace us I don't think that's true and it's pretty difficult to argue that it is given how close to

> [death is] an evolved strategy to allow newer models to replace us I don't think that's true and it's pretty difficult to argue that it is given how close to universal death is among living things... if it were true evolution would also have explored the adjacent possible of near immortality more often. After all living longer also means potentially producing more offspring, so it's not an impediment to natural selection. Probably more accurate to say that between the complexity required to keep repairing the accumulated damage in an individual organism over time and simply replacing the organism with a new model every so often, evolution prudently chose the later. Evolution is economical... making highly complex systems that are eternally resilient and repairable is not. I don't doubt we'll soon be able to extend lifespan (and healthspan) by quite a bit but not indefinitely unless we can transfer the mind to a new body. And frankly I doubt that makes a lot of sense because I don't think 200-year-old me will feel much identity with 20-year-old me anyway. The Buddhists probably have it right that the sense of a continuous self is largely an illusion.