RE: The Future
February 16, 2016 at 12:46 am
(This post was last modified: February 16, 2016 at 12:57 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(February 15, 2016 at 8:43 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:(February 15, 2016 at 8:37 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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?
The survival of a species is dependent on having as much genetic variability as possible; that gives more avenues for mutations in the event of the arising of different selection pressures. It has nothing at all to do with my preferences. This is a fact of evolution by natural selection, which doesn't care one whit what any of us prefer.
You had written that indefinite lifespans would be the best way to ensure survival of our species. I was answering that point. Indefinite lifespans would require dramatically reduced reproduction, which would dramatically reduce genetic variability, which would dramatically reduce the capability of the genome to generate mutations, which in the event of catastrophe would dramatically reduce our odds of survival.
