4 ms·

Evolution just needs people survive long enough to reproduce. If they get sick afterwards, it doesn't care.

by m-schuetz 7mo ago

phreeza 7mo ago
Unless they are contributing to the survival of their offspring.
- laughing_man 7mo ago
  It can work the other way, too. Your offspring may be more likely to survive if you stop consuming resources once they become viable.
  - DrScientist 7mo ago
    Are you sure that availability of resources was a limiting factor during a large part of human evolution? ie what has driven human population growth - a fundamental change in availability of natural resources or a fundamental change in how humans exploited them? I'd argue it's the latter, and that's driven by accumulated knowledge - and before writing - the key repository of that was - old people.
    - washadjeffmad 7mo ago
      Humans have selective adaptations to reduce resource competition between older and younger members of populations - examples are menopause and testosterone levels. Part of the reason it benefited us that some but not all people become old is because people require more attention during two phases of their lives. Our biological evolution has prioritized care for the very young over the very old, with respect to a limit on resources (like attention), effectively until the modern age. In some cultures, for instance, those with teeth must pre-chew food for those without, or expected members to engage in ritual suicide at a certain age.
      - DrScientist 7mo ago
        I think it's a mistake ( common ) to view any organism at a point in time as perfectly adapted. It's like saying cars pistons are designed to wear out - because they do and as the car is perfectly designed ( the mistake ) then it must be for a reason. Also take menopause - it happens a female has all the oocytes ( eggs ) they will ever have already at birth. Menopause happens when they run out. What you are arguing is that the number at birth is optimised with a very indirect feedback loop - as oppose to a very direct one of how much resources do you put aside for eggs in terms of maximising number of direct children versus resources used. Occams razor suggests the latter is going to be stronger. If what you say is true - think about it - old people wouldn't gradually crumble due to wear and tear, they would have evolved some much more efficient death switch. ie Women don't suddenly die post menopause.
    - dooglius 7mo ago
      The vast majority of human evolution happened in non-humans
      - DrScientist 7mo ago
        Sure - though the tuned behaviour around turning the innate immune system up and down is probably dominated by the more recent part of that long history.
    - laughing_man 7mo ago
      Well, given that the biggest killer of humans throughout most of our history was starvation, I think there's a good chance that's true. How much accumulated knowledge do hunter-gatherers have?
- unsupp0rted 7mo ago
  Which is one theory why grandmothers (post-menopausal women) are a thing
amfarrell617 7mo ago
Except humans are a social species and the bands of humans who survived were the ones with the behaviors which kept elders around because of their benefits to our capacity for social learning.
DrScientist 7mo ago
Evolution happens both sides - you and the virus/bacteria trying to live off you. One of the risks of an always on response, is if something evolves to evade it - you have nowhere to go. It's why taking an antibiotic at breakfast everyday is not a good idea.
- eru 7mo ago
  > It's why taking an antibiotic at breakfast everyday is not a good idea. Eh, the main downside in the short run is that you are killing your gut fauna. > One of the risks of an always on response, is if something evolves to evade it - you have nowhere to go. Evolution can't look into the future. (And eg bats are pretty much always on with their immune system.)
  - DrScientist 7mo ago
    > Evolution can't look into the future. Sure. But yesterdays mistakes can be punished today. ie all evolution happens in retrospect - a mutation haopens - the world tells you after the fact whether that was good or bad. Evolution is hindsight in action. In hindsight - taking antibiotics everyday might have been a bad idea. > Eh, the main downside in the short run is that you are killing your gut fauna. Sure - thus increasing your chances for being colonised by an unfriendly and antibiotic resistent bug - which may result in your death - which in hindsight was obviously a bad idea....
- 6510 7mo ago
  The immune system will grow fat and lazy, it will forget how to manufacture anything and be of no use to the rest of the organism.

Evolution just needs people survive long enough to reproduce. If they get sick afterwards, it doesn't care.

phreeza 7mo ago

Unless they are contributing to the survival of their offspring.

laughing_man 7mo ago
It can work the other way, too. Your offspring may be more likely to survive if you stop consuming resources once they become viable.
- DrScientist 7mo ago
  Are you sure that availability of resources was a limiting factor during a large part of human evolution? ie what has driven human population growth - a fundamental change in availability of natural resources or a fundamental change in how humans exploited them? I'd argue it's the latter, and that's driven by accumulated knowledge - and before writing - the key repository of that was - old people.
  - washadjeffmad 7mo ago
    Humans have selective adaptations to reduce resource competition between older and younger members of populations - examples are menopause and testosterone levels. Part of the reason it benefited us that some but not all people become old is because people require more attention during two phases of their lives. Our biological evolution has prioritized care for the very young over the very old, with respect to a limit on resources (like attention), effectively until the modern age. In some cultures, for instance, those with teeth must pre-chew food for those without, or expected members to engage in ritual suicide at a certain age.
    - DrScientist 7mo ago
      I think it's a mistake ( common ) to view any organism at a point in time as perfectly adapted. It's like saying cars pistons are designed to wear out - because they do and as the car is perfectly designed ( the mistake ) then it must be for a reason. Also take menopause - it happens a female has all the oocytes ( eggs ) they will ever have already at birth. Menopause happens when they run out. What you are arguing is that the number at birth is optimised with a very indirect feedback loop - as oppose to a very direct one of how much resources do you put aside for eggs in terms of maximising number of direct children versus resources used. Occams razor suggests the latter is going to be stronger. If what you say is true - think about it - old people wouldn't gradually crumble due to wear and tear, they would have evolved some much more efficient death switch. ie Women don't suddenly die post menopause.
  - dooglius 7mo ago
    The vast majority of human evolution happened in non-humans
    - DrScientist 7mo ago
      Sure - though the tuned behaviour around turning the innate immune system up and down is probably dominated by the more recent part of that long history.
  - laughing_man 7mo ago
    Well, given that the biggest killer of humans throughout most of our history was starvation, I think there's a good chance that's true. How much accumulated knowledge do hunter-gatherers have?
unsupp0rted 7mo ago
Which is one theory why grandmothers (post-menopausal women) are a thing

amfarrell617 7mo ago

Except humans are a social species and the bands of humans who survived were the ones with the behaviors which kept elders around because of their benefits to our capacity for social learning.

DrScientist 7mo ago

Evolution happens both sides - you and the virus/bacteria trying to live off you. One of the risks of an always on response, is if something evolves to evade it - you have nowhere to go. It's why taking an antibiotic at breakfast everyday is not a good idea.

eru 7mo ago
> It's why taking an antibiotic at breakfast everyday is not a good idea. Eh, the main downside in the short run is that you are killing your gut fauna. > One of the risks of an always on response, is if something evolves to evade it - you have nowhere to go. Evolution can't look into the future. (And eg bats are pretty much always on with their immune system.)
- DrScientist 7mo ago
  > Evolution can't look into the future. Sure. But yesterdays mistakes can be punished today. ie all evolution happens in retrospect - a mutation haopens - the world tells you after the fact whether that was good or bad. Evolution is hindsight in action. In hindsight - taking antibiotics everyday might have been a bad idea. > Eh, the main downside in the short run is that you are killing your gut fauna. Sure - thus increasing your chances for being colonised by an unfriendly and antibiotic resistent bug - which may result in your death - which in hindsight was obviously a bad idea....
6510 7mo ago
The immune system will grow fat and lazy, it will forget how to manufacture anything and be of no use to the rest of the organism.