4 ms·
> Then it dawned on me that the survival of the species is not aligned with the survival of an individual. The selfish genes control, and their survival is not
by atticora 3y ago
> Then it dawned on me that the survival of the species is not aligned with the survival of an individual.
The selfish genes control, and their survival is not perfectly aligned with either the individual or the species. If aging becomes too slow, adaptation slows, and successful genes become more rare and their propagation slows. Genes are replicators, replicators need turn-over to replicate, and greater age means slower turn-over.
It may be that the advent of cultural replicators have decreased the optimal turn-over rate of genetic replicators, but they don't know that.
- cma 3y agoAt the individual and immediate progeny level, aging doesn't affect generation time. If there were group selection it might, as the older people displace resources for the younger, but for an individual that should be dilluted down to no real effect.
- atticora 3y agoSince a given niche can only support a given population size, aging reduces generation time by hitting a ceiling on population size. Some organisms get around this by spawning thousands of offspring and all but approximately one fails fast. So that's an available trade-off. Increase individual age limits, but maintain adaptation rates by letting many immature individuals compete and die before maturity. Like spermatozoa and tadpoles.
- cma 3y ago> aging reduces generation time by hitting a ceiling on population size. That's what I meant by "if there were group selection it might, as the older people displace resources for the younger."