RE: The Future
February 16, 2016 at 12:01 am
(This post was last modified: February 16, 2016 at 12:13 am by God of Mr. Hanky.)
(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.
THIS! It has been at the forfront of my mind, but I didn't want to dump any more cold water than I already have on the wet dream of abolishing our life-span, which so many here share.
We're supposed to be the people who understand the science of how evolution works...*sigh*
Mr. Hanky loves you!
