(February 15, 2016 at 8:37 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(February 15, 2016 at 12:37 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Your argument is irrational. The whole point of reproduction is so that a species can survive. Ensuring indefinite lifespans would be the best way to do that.
As for your stagnation scenario, I find it ridiculous and baseless.
Slowing down reproduction -- which would be required with the great expansion of life-span lest we court overpopulation -- also reduces the variability of the gene-pool, all other things being equal.
This is why bacteria evolve faster than do insects, why insects evolve faster than do fish, and so on.
How would that be a bad thing? You would rather die to let evolution take its natural course?
