Shorter lifespans drive faster evolution. That was taught in basic biology and we, as a society, know it all too well (infectious diseases).
It’s difficult to square obsession with a long life with a healthy humanity.
back
1 comments
Faster evolution does not necessarily translate to better outcomes. Exhibit A: the respiratory capabilities of the brachycephalic pug. Exhibit B: the rabbit fear response – they can get so terrified that they break their own spines trying to escape. Exhibit C: every creature with a hybrid r/K reproductive strategy involving child- or sibling-cannibalism.
> Faster evolution does not necessarily translate to better outcomes.
For individuals, of course yes. But for populations? Also yes, but temporarily as dead-ends (A), or inconsequential stopovers (B), or distasteful (C).
If B's an inconsequential stopover, then explain every other rodent in a similar ecological niche. I picked rabbits because they're cute, not because they live unusually unpleasant lives. Sexual selection can produce far worse than A (e.g. ram horns can grow through their skulls, gradually impaling their brains and eventually killing them). And the category of "distasteful" is very, very large indeed.
Nature is red in tooth and claw: trusting evolution to shape a better humanity in the absence of medical treatment is playing "look, ma, no hands!" with eugenics, retroactively justifying every tin-pot dictator's killing spree as a rightful bestowal of the Darwin Award. Medical care to prevent avoidable injury and death is good, actually.