3 ms·

Think about it from the perspective of genetic material temporarily 'trapped' in the body like passengers on a boat. All else being equal, a new boat is better

Think about it from the perspective of genetic material temporarily 'trapped' in the body like passengers on a boat. All else being equal, a new boat is better than an old boat. And, a new body is better than an old body (even if all the error correction machinery is there and fully working, a 26 year-old body has an advantage over a 46 year-old one, or an 86 year-old one). After the genetic material has been transferred to a new body, via reproduction, i.e. the passengers have been transferred to the new boat, what purpose does the old boat serve other than to consume resources that could be used by the new one? I think there is a case to be made that death gives organisms, that is to say it gives genetic material (which is the important bit, not the organism which is a mere vessel for the genes) an evolutionary advantage.

Houshalter 12y ago
No. Evolution selects based on relative fitness. Killing older members is obviously more efficient for the population as a whole. However individual genes that "defect" and continue reproducing into old age will make more copies and spread themselves more into the next generation than the "aging" genes. Even if it's inefficient and they use more resources (which isn't true, it takes a lot of effort and energy to raise a child, keeping an existing body is way better.)
- deciplex 12y ago
  But, the genes are in the new body as well? So, wouldn't the genes that move to a new host and program the old host to expire be better off?
  - emiliobumachar 12y ago
    Genes do not move, they replicate. The old host did not lose the genes when reproducing.
arkj 12y ago
I think the question really is, if the inbuilt mechanisms are working efficiently, why should there be a difference between 46 year old vs 26 year old. I the replenishment of the cells go intact why should it matter how old one is, unless there is something inhering in the genetic material itself that is time bound.

Houshalter 12y ago

No. Evolution selects based on relative fitness. Killing older members is obviously more efficient for the population as a whole. However individual genes that "defect" and continue reproducing into old age will make more copies and spread themselves more into the next generation than the "aging" genes. Even if it's inefficient and they use more resources (which isn't true, it takes a lot of effort and energy to raise a child, keeping an existing body is way better.)

deciplex 12y ago
But, the genes are in the new body as well? So, wouldn't the genes that move to a new host and program the old host to expire be better off?
- emiliobumachar 12y ago
  Genes do not move, they replicate. The old host did not lose the genes when reproducing.

arkj 12y ago

I think the question really is, if the inbuilt mechanisms are working efficiently, why should there be a difference between 46 year old vs 26 year old. I the replenishment of the cells go intact why should it matter how old one is, unless there is something inhering in the genetic material itself that is time bound.