4 ms·

This is in part because too long life may in fact hurt the group. Of course we don’t want to look at that because we are so hell bent on extending life, even ta

This is in part because too long life may in fact hurt the group. Of course we don’t want to look at that because we are so hell bent on extending life, even talk about immortality.

chki 3y ago
You're talking about an optimization strategy that's a few hundred thousand years old though. (And might not even be an optimization strategy at all) Its applicability to modern life seems highly dubious considering the massive cultural changes we have been going through.
jjk166 3y ago
Evolution works on the genetic level, not the population level. While some altruistic strategies might be selected for (e.g. kin selection), in general evolution doesn't care if something "hurts the group." In nature, dying of old age is incredibly rare as you are much more likely to die from predation or injury. Even if you suffered no ill effects from aging, ie you were biologically immortal, passing on your genes successfully would still require you to have offspring reasonably early in life. There is only selection pressure on your genes up to the point where you have successfully passed on your genes. It makes sense for evolution to keep you alive while raising your kids, and even while helping your offspring raise their kids (see the Grandmother Effect [0]), but eventually the marginal utility of your support drops so low, and the odds you're already dead rises so high, that there is simply no selective pressure. As an illustrative example, you could have a gene that makes you twice as strong as you were at 25, but if it only activates after you're 150, you and evolution would never know. On top of this, many genes have tradeoffs. If there is any mutation that gives benefits early in life but is harmful later in life, evolution will tend to select for it, especially versus the reverse. Similarly, traits that only provide a benefit for a finite period which is nevertheless long compared to natural lifespan can be favored over traits that work indefinitely (eg many mammals are born with a few sets of teeth and have no way of repairing them). This leads into more general accumulation-of-damage theories of aging. We see many species in nature, particularly those unlikely to undergo predation and at low risk of injury, with substantially longer or even indefinite lifespans. In the lab, we can also breed organisms like fruit flies to have substantially longer than natural lifespans. There is no evidence that living longer is harmful to others in hunter gatherer societies of the sort we evolved to live in, and certainly no evidence that such harm would still be present in modern, industrial societies. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/22/grandmother-effect-helps-explain-human-longevity/ https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/22/grandmother-effect-helps...
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
  This is quite shortsighted of you to say. If your group is less likely to survive, you as a part of it are also less likely to survive and vice versa. Genetics are not isolated from you, or your group, or your environment, they’re not isolated from anything. Evolution is a function of the totality of the system in which you exist. And to prove my point, genetics clearly work on the level of an organism, which is nothing but a group of cells holding the genes you’re talking about. Why are genetics working on the level of the organism, a group of cells, not just on the level of the cells? It makes no sense to have it both ways and claim the evolution of genes goes beyond cells but stops at the surface of your skin. Why did we evolve empathy, cooperation, language? Because we survive better as a group when we can synchronize together in advanced ways. You think none of this requires genetic alteration to exist? Why not teach your cat to talk then?

This is in part because too long life may in fact hurt the group. Of course we don’t want to look at that because we are so hell bent on extending life, even talk about immortality.

chki 3y ago

You're talking about an optimization strategy that's a few hundred thousand years old though. (And might not even be an optimization strategy at all) Its applicability to modern life seems highly dubious considering the massive cultural changes we have been going through.

jjk166 3y ago

Evolution works on the genetic level, not the population level. While some altruistic strategies might be selected for (e.g. kin selection), in general evolution doesn't care if something "hurts the group." In nature, dying of old age is incredibly rare as you are much more likely to die from predation or injury. Even if you suffered no ill effects from aging, ie you were biologically immortal, passing on your genes successfully would still require you to have offspring reasonably early in life. There is only selection pressure on your genes up to the point where you have successfully passed on your genes. It makes sense for evolution to keep you alive while raising your kids, and even while helping your offspring raise their kids (see the Grandmother Effect [0]), but eventually the marginal utility of your support drops so low, and the odds you're already dead rises so high, that there is simply no selective pressure. As an illustrative example, you could have a gene that makes you twice as strong as you were at 25, but if it only activates after you're 150, you and evolution would never know. On top of this, many genes have tradeoffs. If there is any mutation that gives benefits early in life but is harmful later in life, evolution will tend to select for it, especially versus the reverse. Similarly, traits that only provide a benefit for a finite period which is nevertheless long compared to natural lifespan can be favored over traits that work indefinitely (eg many mammals are born with a few sets of teeth and have no way of repairing them). This leads into more general accumulation-of-damage theories of aging. We see many species in nature, particularly those unlikely to undergo predation and at low risk of injury, with substantially longer or even indefinite lifespans. In the lab, we can also breed organisms like fruit flies to have substantially longer than natural lifespans. There is no evidence that living longer is harmful to others in hunter gatherer societies of the sort we evolved to live in, and certainly no evidence that such harm would still be present in modern, industrial societies. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/22/grandmother-effect-helps-explain-human-longevity/ https://www.statnews.com/2019/02/22/grandmother-effect-helps...

3cats-in-a-coat 3y ago
This is quite shortsighted of you to say. If your group is less likely to survive, you as a part of it are also less likely to survive and vice versa. Genetics are not isolated from you, or your group, or your environment, they’re not isolated from anything. Evolution is a function of the totality of the system in which you exist. And to prove my point, genetics clearly work on the level of an organism, which is nothing but a group of cells holding the genes you’re talking about. Why are genetics working on the level of the organism, a group of cells, not just on the level of the cells? It makes no sense to have it both ways and claim the evolution of genes goes beyond cells but stops at the surface of your skin. Why did we evolve empathy, cooperation, language? Because we survive better as a group when we can synchronize together in advanced ways. You think none of this requires genetic alteration to exist? Why not teach your cat to talk then?