4 ms·

Don't forget that death is a required feature for a specie to evolve. It might be the case that immortal organisms lived on earth, the fact that we don't see th

by bobim 2y ago

Don't forget that death is a required feature for a specie to evolve. It might be the case that immortal organisms lived on earth, the fact that we don't see them around just confirms that dying is a competitive advantage, not a problem. We are not the end of evolution, we need to overcome our individual desire to stay here an leave to make room for the next iteration.

sbelskie 2y ago
I don’t really have an opinion one way or another but why would we need to? There doesn’t really seem to be any plausible practical or moral imperative to do so.
jcfrei 2y ago
Completely missing the mark here, sorry to be so blunt. But modern medicine has taken away almost all evolutionary pressures except for regions where healthcare is not available or for some very rare and serious conditions.
- bobim 2y ago
  Yes, but if we stop producing new minds with better capability we miss the opportunity to get the next Einstein that will enable warp drive and save humanity from its fate.
  - tavavex 2y ago
    If we made sure Einstein's mind never lost its youthfulness, why would we need a next generation? Imagine the outcomes if any of the well-known, world-renowned geniuses got basically infinite time to pursue any projects of their choosing. To think of new ideas, build atop what they've already discovered. Hell, think of everyone else - one could study or research for decades, with professionals in their fields joining forces with anyone who studied enough to join with them. Needing a constant flow of new generations for new innovations seems like a self-imposed limitation, not an actual necessity.
- istjohn 2y ago
  Darwinian evolution isn't the only way death facilitates progress. It's said that science progresses one funeral at a time. The long arc of the moral universe Dr. King spoke of no doubt bends towards justice more quickly as new generations displace the old. It's easier to be "unburdened by what has been" when you don't have 100 years of outdated intuitions and beliefs clouding your understanding of the present.

by bobim 2y ago

sbelskie 2y ago

I don’t really have an opinion one way or another but why would we need to? There doesn’t really seem to be any plausible practical or moral imperative to do so.

jcfrei 2y ago

Completely missing the mark here, sorry to be so blunt. But modern medicine has taken away almost all evolutionary pressures except for regions where healthcare is not available or for some very rare and serious conditions.

bobim 2y ago
Yes, but if we stop producing new minds with better capability we miss the opportunity to get the next Einstein that will enable warp drive and save humanity from its fate.
- tavavex 2y ago
  If we made sure Einstein's mind never lost its youthfulness, why would we need a next generation? Imagine the outcomes if any of the well-known, world-renowned geniuses got basically infinite time to pursue any projects of their choosing. To think of new ideas, build atop what they've already discovered. Hell, think of everyone else - one could study or research for decades, with professionals in their fields joining forces with anyone who studied enough to join with them. Needing a constant flow of new generations for new innovations seems like a self-imposed limitation, not an actual necessity.
istjohn 2y ago
Darwinian evolution isn't the only way death facilitates progress. It's said that science progresses one funeral at a time. The long arc of the moral universe Dr. King spoke of no doubt bends towards justice more quickly as new generations displace the old. It's easier to be "unburdened by what has been" when you don't have 100 years of outdated intuitions and beliefs clouding your understanding of the present.