The Future

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

We're not just a mere species like any other. We've developed tools to ensure our survival, we don't rely as much on natural processes to evolve or survive, if at all( in real time, I mean). I don't see how such a catastrophe couldn't be avoided with the use of technology but with genetic variation. You're not making any sense.

As we see with global warming or the threat of nuclear war, the catastrophe may well result from human activity. Waving away as not making sense ignores that point. It ignores the many natural catastrophes that technology cannot avert -- comet strike, supervolcano eruption, and so on.


But all that is beside the point. Are you saying that you would have humanity ignore a cure to death itself? Why?
[/quote]

As I've already said, this is not about my personal preference. I was responding to a particular claim you made which is not borne out by evolutionary theory nor by what we see in nature. Why you keep trying to impute this as my preference is none of my business and I won't be partaking in a discussion based on such a false imputation.