4 ms·

> Evolution has no further use for him, so his life is forfeit. In fact, survival of the progeny may be advanced by getting rid of the old folks. I think this

> Evolution has no further use for him, so his life is forfeit. In fact, survival of the progeny may be advanced by getting rid of the old folks. I think this shows that in species where the male does not die promptly after mating, there is good reason to live longer. > Beyond that, off to the ice floe. Where does the certainty come that you cannot be useful in ensuring the survival of your great-grandkids, or great-great-grandkids? After all, if you're arguing from what evolution mandates, the only thing to do is let everyone do whatever, and see where evolution goes next. You really can't think evolution had the current situation as its target all along, and now the only remaining thing is to not disturb it.

WalterBright 2y ago
> You really can't think evolution had the current situation as its target all along That's not the point. Evolution does not have a target. Evolution favors the propagation of genes. Anything that does a better job of that gets expressed into the next generation. > Where does the certainty come that you cannot be useful in ensuring the survival of your great-grandkids, or great-great-grandkids? I never said certainty. The notion of diminishing returns comes to mind. Also, the percentage of great-great-grandkids genes that are yours would be about 8%, so not a lot of contribution.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Also, there's very likely big downsides to any adaptations for longer life, such as increased cancer rates, which might make it evolutionarily disadvantageous for humans to live that long. Of course, evolution of humans was all done before humans invented technology and things like hospitals and bandages and antibiotics, so what yielded the best chances for propagating genes 100,000 years ago might not make too much sense to humans today.
  - heavenlyblue 2y ago
    I don't understand, would you rather die earlier than have cancer?
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      This isn't about what any person wants, it's about what's more likely to increase odds for survival. Living too long, for a creature that doesn't have any medical technology, means probably a higher chance of cancer. Living too short means less chance to pass on its genes, or to help its children pass on their genes. So theoretically, we humans found a balance between the two where we live long enough to be grandparents but that's it, and that's what's encoded in our DNA. However, now that we understand DNA better, and also what causes various cancers and how to treat them, we should be able to change our DNA to extend lifespans without causing us to die of cancer at young ages.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    As "The Red Queen" points out, organisms tend to accumulate parasites and the parasites become adapted to living in the organism. The organism dying will then kill off its parasites, giving the offspring a better chance not be infected by the better adapted parasites. The competition for food means the older organisms will be better at gathering food, leaving less for the young. Better for the older ones to die off so the young can get the food. Nature is brutal. Civilization has been able to ameliorate some of the harshness, but it's still there, and we have no assurance that civilization won't kill us off anyway.
h0l0cube 2y ago
> I think this shows that in species where the male does not die promptly after mating, there is good reason to live longer Yep. Parenthood. And for humans (and other social species like elephants, other primates, etc.) to be grandparents. Humans have a particularly long juvenile period, which they need care of parents and cannot reproduce. The reason humans still die, of course, is so that resources aren't wasted on bodies that take more and more energy to keep alive and healthy, which ultimately comes back to entropy.

WalterBright 2y ago

> You really can't think evolution had the current situation as its target all along That's not the point. Evolution does not have a target. Evolution favors the propagation of genes. Anything that does a better job of that gets expressed into the next generation. > Where does the certainty come that you cannot be useful in ensuring the survival of your great-grandkids, or great-great-grandkids? I never said certainty. The notion of diminishing returns comes to mind. Also, the percentage of great-great-grandkids genes that are yours would be about 8%, so not a lot of contribution.

shiroiushi 2y ago
Also, there's very likely big downsides to any adaptations for longer life, such as increased cancer rates, which might make it evolutionarily disadvantageous for humans to live that long. Of course, evolution of humans was all done before humans invented technology and things like hospitals and bandages and antibiotics, so what yielded the best chances for propagating genes 100,000 years ago might not make too much sense to humans today.
- heavenlyblue 2y ago
  I don't understand, would you rather die earlier than have cancer?
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    This isn't about what any person wants, it's about what's more likely to increase odds for survival. Living too long, for a creature that doesn't have any medical technology, means probably a higher chance of cancer. Living too short means less chance to pass on its genes, or to help its children pass on their genes. So theoretically, we humans found a balance between the two where we live long enough to be grandparents but that's it, and that's what's encoded in our DNA. However, now that we understand DNA better, and also what causes various cancers and how to treat them, we should be able to change our DNA to extend lifespans without causing us to die of cancer at young ages.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  As "The Red Queen" points out, organisms tend to accumulate parasites and the parasites become adapted to living in the organism. The organism dying will then kill off its parasites, giving the offspring a better chance not be infected by the better adapted parasites. The competition for food means the older organisms will be better at gathering food, leaving less for the young. Better for the older ones to die off so the young can get the food. Nature is brutal. Civilization has been able to ameliorate some of the harshness, but it's still there, and we have no assurance that civilization won't kill us off anyway.

h0l0cube 2y ago

> I think this shows that in species where the male does not die promptly after mating, there is good reason to live longer Yep. Parenthood. And for humans (and other social species like elephants, other primates, etc.) to be grandparents. Humans have a particularly long juvenile period, which they need care of parents and cannot reproduce. The reason humans still die, of course, is so that resources aren't wasted on bodies that take more and more energy to keep alive and healthy, which ultimately comes back to entropy.