Re:Anti-Aging Startup Raises $116M With Bezos Backing
by nullc on Friday October 28, 2016 @10:57PM
(#12822393)
Something doesn't need to be beneficial to be conserved, being not too harmful is enough. Or even being harmful but pointlessly crosslinked with something essential such that it's hard for evolution to escape the local minima.
More over, human values are not the same as the objectives of evolution, nor should they be.
> but I hold the opinion that if we don't continuously pursue optimization cycles
We can undermine the optimization of evolution just fine, without ending death from aging--
I seem to recall that both of us wear corrective lenses, thus largely excluding the selective pressure for naturally better eyesight that we might otherwise be subjected to. :)
With that in mind, it's something of a false choice that you present: It's not like mankind is subject to the full force of evolutionary pressure with aging and completely free of it without.
Besides, I seem to recall the the rate for accidental death in adults suggests that we'd end up with a roughly 500 year life span even if we completely cured all aging related issues. A lot longer in human terms, but hardly anything for evolution.
Another perspective would be that the biggest threat to mankinds survival isn't anything evolution is well equip to protect us from-- us killing ourselves with phenomenal weapons and bad policy. Because our bad decisions could wipe our mankind worldwide evolution has no real chance to fabricate less problematic future humans. ... But perhaps humans acting in their own perpetually immortal interest might just behave a little more prudently.
More over, human values are not the same as the objectives of evolution, nor should they be.
> but I hold the opinion that if we don't continuously pursue optimization cycles
We can undermine the optimization of evolution just fine, without ending death from aging--
I seem to recall that both of us wear corrective lenses, thus largely excluding the selective pressure for naturally better eyesight that we might otherwise be subjected to. :)
With that in mind, it's something of a false choice that you present: It's not like mankind is subject to the full force of evolutionary pressure with aging and completely free of it without.
Besides, I seem to recall the the rate for accidental death in adults suggests that we'd end up with a roughly 500 year life span even if we completely cured all aging related issues. A lot longer in human terms, but hardly anything for evolution.
Another perspective would be that the biggest threat to mankinds survival isn't anything evolution is well equip to protect us from-- us killing ourselves with phenomenal weapons and bad policy. Because our bad decisions could wipe our mankind worldwide evolution has no real chance to fabricate less problematic future humans. ... But perhaps humans acting in their own perpetually immortal interest might just behave a little more prudently.