Touche.

If it's possible do you know why evolution didn't figure out how to do this? Seems like it would be a good adaptation

This one is easy. First of all, evolution only cares about the species as a whole, so the survival of an individual, especially after they've produced their offspring, doesn't matter much. Second, in the wild, animals will be killed by predators much more quickly than they'd die of old age, so all the mutations that only manifest negatively in older age have never had a chance to be selected against.

Besides, the whole premise of evolution is that older generations die.

(disclaimer: I'm a software developer, not a biologist, but I'm fascinated by biology)

You got it in reverse: evolution only "cares" about the individual

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Queen:_Sex_and_the_Evo...

Lol. I usually read HN to follow tech trends. This thread in hilariously uninformed. It is as shaky as me writing a critique of database engines would be.

On this specific subthread: yes the individual is the level of selection (mainly) but Dawkins has renewed interest in the sequence variant as the ultimate unit of selection. We are protoplasmic bags of gene variants, some of which make it to the next generations.

Evolution optimizes for reproduction, not long life. Long life is likely not very beneficial to reproduction and a large population of older members is a drain on resources. At least, it was until we got to the Information Age.

Sometimes long life is key to reproduction, for example old turtles are bigger and safer from predators (before humans came) and have more offsprings than younger ones (yearly and in total). Turtles can grow very old because there is reproduction advantage to that.