4 ms·

Hmm. If we engineer late-life reproduction, that might create evolutionary pressure for healthy old age. Hides long list of ethical problems with the concept

throwuxiytayq 2y ago
The main problem is that evolution is just not a thing at our modern civilizational time scale. And I don’t see any problems with late-life reproduction, assuming we can make it reliable and healthy. If anything, some countries desperately need it.
- literalAardvark 2y ago
  From my reading this is wrong in principle. Evolution is really slow on average, but locally it moves quite quickly and probably explains the large variation between members of a species. Add strong selective pressure to that high local speed and you can change a good part of the genotype within a couple of generations. See: animal husbandry. You can breed a new race of dog within 5-10 generations. Ethics aside we could probably breed people who can sniff out Alzheimer's in less than 250 years. Our current late reproduction style will very likely influence future generations health at older ages.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    It's probably a wash. Sure people are reproducing later, but it's also more likely that they have recieved some major medical intervention to allow them to make it to that stage. For example, it could be stuff like freezing eggs before starting chemo.
    - tomrod 2y ago
      That in of itself is an external selection pressure though, having enough fit to gather resources to delay reproduction.
  - throwuxiytayq 2y ago
    > in less than 250 years I don't dispute any of your points in general. But at the same time, it brings a nostalgic smile to my face to envision starting a 250-year project in 2025.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Someone needs to remain alive to provide, protect and raise the kids.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  Evolution is still a thing at relatively short time periods. Icelanders are a well-studied population when it comes to genetics. Frequency of some traits meaningfully changed among them in last 100 years. Source: this book: https://www.amazon.de/dp/0198821263?ref_=pe_109184651_1103807401_fed_asin_title https://www.amazon.de/dp/0198821263?ref_=pe_109184651_110380...
  - genewitch 2y ago
    Also the moths that "changed" from white to black during and because of the industrial revolution. That was quick, and to me, the best example of how it all works.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Workaccount2 2y ago
We just have to get the media to portray geriatric men as sexy, and we'll be well on our way to living to 200!
- the_af 2y ago
  I know you're joking, but it's women that get the short end of the stick in media. Men are (within reason) considered handsome in media even in old age. Wrinkles and gray hair can be seen as sexy (again, within reason), but only in men. Women are discarded or relegated to sexless granny roles (except maybe for comedic purposes, where sexuality is the butt of a joke). Actresses are replaced by younger women because they are not sexy enough even when their male equivalents aren't (looking at you, Top Gun: Maverick). I'm not saying there aren't exceptions in particular movies that deal with this topic; I'm talking about the general trend.
  - Spooky23 2y ago
    When you ask men who they are attracted to, at least on the surface, it’s always young women. I’m pretty sure the OkCupid stats showed that girls age 20 give or take were peak attractiveness. Reality is of course that guys will “work for food” or attention. Women are different. It ranges — alot, and is more about EQ and scarcity. If you have a moderate baseline level of physical attractiveness, moderately fit (Jon two miles let’s say), not an asshole, and not living with mom, a 40-60 year old guy is a hot commodity.
    - fc417fc802 2y ago
      This all makes perfect sense from a fertility (and thus natural selection) perspective.
      - the_af 2y ago
        Agreed, but once you reach 60 (like Cruise and McGillis) you're well beyond the forces of natural selection and into the unnatural realm that our longer lives have granted us. Both of these actors are outcompeted in real life by younger people (sex/reproduction wise) yet one of them is still able to secure billing in "sexy roles" and the other isn't... and this is just one example. This could be natural selection acting against us, but since modern society is artificial anyway, why not make an effort to combat it?
halgir 2y ago
We missed the boat for that a few million years ago. If we're engineering anyway, we might as well engineer for healthy old age directly.
the__alchemist 2y ago
Dawkins suggested this might be viable (In an abstract; not politically practical) way in The Selfish Gene.
wkat4242 2y ago
With our modern health systems we are pretty much a huge evolutionary blind spot ourselves. Many illnesses that would be filtered out because the carrier wouldn't survive, are now trivial. And on the journey hand we can screen for known illnesses. I think we are already post evolutionary, or control it ourselves. Not a big issue either IMO, it's totally ok that this is happening.
- derektank 2y ago
  We are definitely not post-evolutionary; the selection pressures have simply changed. Before industrialization the big two were starvation and infectious disease. Now? Well, it's anybody's guess decade to decade. Certainly sexual selection is still with us.
pavel_lishin 2y ago
I read a pretty entertaining novel where that was one of the sub-plots. The ethical problems were fun to read about! But would be significantly less fun to live through.
- justinclift 2y ago
  Name of the novel?
  - pavel_lishin 2y ago
    It was one of Stephen Baxter's Xeelee series, I believe it was Ring.
    - justinclift 2y ago
      Cool, yeah those are pretty good. :)
Qem 2y ago
We engineered it culturally already. Lots of people delaying childbirth until late 30s, early 40s today, often resorting to expensive treatments.
magicalhippo 2y ago
If we're ignoring ethics, then we don't need late-life reproduction. Just kill all offspring if one of the parents die of some unwanted cause. Allows people to still get kids in the optimal age, yet applying old-age selection pressure.

throwuxiytayq 2y ago

The main problem is that evolution is just not a thing at our modern civilizational time scale. And I don’t see any problems with late-life reproduction, assuming we can make it reliable and healthy. If anything, some countries desperately need it.

literalAardvark 2y ago
From my reading this is wrong in principle. Evolution is really slow on average, but locally it moves quite quickly and probably explains the large variation between members of a species. Add strong selective pressure to that high local speed and you can change a good part of the genotype within a couple of generations. See: animal husbandry. You can breed a new race of dog within 5-10 generations. Ethics aside we could probably breed people who can sniff out Alzheimer's in less than 250 years. Our current late reproduction style will very likely influence future generations health at older ages.
- giantg2 2y ago
  It's probably a wash. Sure people are reproducing later, but it's also more likely that they have recieved some major medical intervention to allow them to make it to that stage. For example, it could be stuff like freezing eggs before starting chemo.
  - tomrod 2y ago
    That in of itself is an external selection pressure though, having enough fit to gather resources to delay reproduction.
- throwuxiytayq 2y ago
  > in less than 250 years I don't dispute any of your points in general. But at the same time, it brings a nostalgic smile to my face to envision starting a 250-year project in 2025.
tomrod 2y ago
Someone needs to remain alive to provide, protect and raise the kids.
inglor_cz 2y ago
Evolution is still a thing at relatively short time periods. Icelanders are a well-studied population when it comes to genetics. Frequency of some traits meaningfully changed among them in last 100 years. Source: this book: https://www.amazon.de/dp/0198821263?ref_=pe_109184651_1103807401_fed_asin_title https://www.amazon.de/dp/0198821263?ref_=pe_109184651_110380...
- genewitch 2y ago
  Also the moths that "changed" from white to black during and because of the industrial revolution. That was quick, and to me, the best example of how it all works.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Workaccount2 2y ago

We just have to get the media to portray geriatric men as sexy, and we'll be well on our way to living to 200!

the_af 2y ago
I know you're joking, but it's women that get the short end of the stick in media. Men are (within reason) considered handsome in media even in old age. Wrinkles and gray hair can be seen as sexy (again, within reason), but only in men. Women are discarded or relegated to sexless granny roles (except maybe for comedic purposes, where sexuality is the butt of a joke). Actresses are replaced by younger women because they are not sexy enough even when their male equivalents aren't (looking at you, Top Gun: Maverick). I'm not saying there aren't exceptions in particular movies that deal with this topic; I'm talking about the general trend.
- Spooky23 2y ago
  When you ask men who they are attracted to, at least on the surface, it’s always young women. I’m pretty sure the OkCupid stats showed that girls age 20 give or take were peak attractiveness. Reality is of course that guys will “work for food” or attention. Women are different. It ranges — alot, and is more about EQ and scarcity. If you have a moderate baseline level of physical attractiveness, moderately fit (Jon two miles let’s say), not an asshole, and not living with mom, a 40-60 year old guy is a hot commodity.
  - fc417fc802 2y ago
    This all makes perfect sense from a fertility (and thus natural selection) perspective.
    - the_af 2y ago
      Agreed, but once you reach 60 (like Cruise and McGillis) you're well beyond the forces of natural selection and into the unnatural realm that our longer lives have granted us. Both of these actors are outcompeted in real life by younger people (sex/reproduction wise) yet one of them is still able to secure billing in "sexy roles" and the other isn't... and this is just one example. This could be natural selection acting against us, but since modern society is artificial anyway, why not make an effort to combat it?

halgir 2y ago

We missed the boat for that a few million years ago. If we're engineering anyway, we might as well engineer for healthy old age directly.

the__alchemist 2y ago

Dawkins suggested this might be viable (In an abstract; not politically practical) way in The Selfish Gene.

wkat4242 2y ago

With our modern health systems we are pretty much a huge evolutionary blind spot ourselves. Many illnesses that would be filtered out because the carrier wouldn't survive, are now trivial. And on the journey hand we can screen for known illnesses. I think we are already post evolutionary, or control it ourselves. Not a big issue either IMO, it's totally ok that this is happening.

derektank 2y ago
We are definitely not post-evolutionary; the selection pressures have simply changed. Before industrialization the big two were starvation and infectious disease. Now? Well, it's anybody's guess decade to decade. Certainly sexual selection is still with us.

pavel_lishin 2y ago

I read a pretty entertaining novel where that was one of the sub-plots. The ethical problems were fun to read about! But would be significantly less fun to live through.

justinclift 2y ago
Name of the novel?
- pavel_lishin 2y ago
  It was one of Stephen Baxter's Xeelee series, I believe it was Ring.
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Cool, yeah those are pretty good. :)

Qem 2y ago

We engineered it culturally already. Lots of people delaying childbirth until late 30s, early 40s today, often resorting to expensive treatments.

magicalhippo 2y ago

If we're ignoring ethics, then we don't need late-life reproduction. Just kill all offspring if one of the parents die of some unwanted cause. Allows people to still get kids in the optimal age, yet applying old-age selection pressure.