3 ms·

Also, there's very likely big downsides to any adaptations for longer life, such as increased cancer rates, which might make it evolutionarily disadvantageous f

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.

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.