3 ms·
> ...a really hard problem that evolution has spent billions of generations on... I think it's worth noting that this isn't evolution's "goal". We just need to
by rlpb 2y ago
> ...a really hard problem that evolution has spent billions of generations on...
I think it's worth noting that this isn't evolution's "goal". We just need to produce offspring and give them a good start in life such that they are competitively successful. Beyond that, evolution doesn't care.
Even for that, there's a budget. If it's not economical over letting us die and not taking valuable resources from our offspring, then evolution also doesn't care.
- photochemsyn 2y agoThat could suggest why longevity in humans (or primates ) was under active selection, as they put a lot of effort into raising the children so you'd expect that cancer in younger people would result in the death of their children, so evolution selects for robust anti-cancer systems (like the human immune system, which is relatively good at detecting and eliminating cancer cells as well as pathogenic bacteria, etc.). These explanations are however always a bit hand-wavy, eg why do galapagos tortoises live to 150 when they don't seem to do much parental investment?
- rlpb 2y agoThere must be other evolutionary pressures that change cancer resistance as a side effect.
- tjpnz 2y agoHaving grandparents around to care for the young would allow for more procreation.
- rlpb 2y agoYes, but only to a limit. The resource cost in ensuring longevity must be less than the benefit provided in caring for the young.