4 ms·

A1 is a parent of A2, and A2 a parent of A3. A1 has a genetic trait that makes old age a terribly painful experience, and the moment of death a horrifying orde

A1 is a parent of A2, and A2 a parent of A3. A1 has a genetic trait that makes old age a terribly painful experience, and the moment of death a horrifying ordeal. Far worse than what most experience. A2 becomes scared of death. As A2 gets older, they behave chaotically because of the trauma from watching A1 die painfully and the fear that they’ll experience the same fate. A2 does not take good care of A3. I hope this example (unscientifically) shows that there are likely some strong trends toward genetic traits that support a peaceful end of life period. I suspect there are also multigenerational trends toward older members dying before they become a drain on a tribe’s resources. An obvious historically-useful benefit, that now leaves us worried sick about our aging parents (that they’ll slip and fall, and activate the “end of life” phase, where they’d have passed away if it weren’t for medical intervention).

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> dying before they become a drain on a tribe’s resources. Why wouldn't evolution select for members who don't become a drain on the tribe? Why age at all?
- burning_hamster 3y ago
  Indeed, it's the classical Weismann's fallacy. From Nick Lane's 'Life Ascending': > The most popular idea, dating back to Weismann in the 1880s, is wrong, as he himself was quick to recognise. Weismann originally proposed that ageing and death rid populations of old worn-out individuals, replacing them with racy new models replete with a new set of genes remixed by sex. The idea invests death with some sort of nobility and symmetry, in service of a greater cause, even if it can hardly aspire to the grandeur of a religious purpose. In this view the death of an individual benefits the species, just as the death of some cells benefits the organism. But the argument is circular, as Weismann’s critics pointed out: old individuals are only ‘worn out’ if they age in the first place, so Weismann presupposed exactly what he was trying to explain. The question remained, what makes individuals ‘wear out’ with age, even if death does benefit populations?

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

> dying before they become a drain on a tribe’s resources. Why wouldn't evolution select for members who don't become a drain on the tribe? Why age at all?

burning_hamster 3y ago
Indeed, it's the classical Weismann's fallacy. From Nick Lane's 'Life Ascending': > The most popular idea, dating back to Weismann in the 1880s, is wrong, as he himself was quick to recognise. Weismann originally proposed that ageing and death rid populations of old worn-out individuals, replacing them with racy new models replete with a new set of genes remixed by sex. The idea invests death with some sort of nobility and symmetry, in service of a greater cause, even if it can hardly aspire to the grandeur of a religious purpose. In this view the death of an individual benefits the species, just as the death of some cells benefits the organism. But the argument is circular, as Weismann’s critics pointed out: old individuals are only ‘worn out’ if they age in the first place, so Weismann presupposed exactly what he was trying to explain. The question remained, what makes individuals ‘wear out’ with age, even if death does benefit populations?