<html><head></head><body>I'm not convinced, I see far too much random sloppiness (a sign of lack of evolutionary pressure) underlying ageing rather than timer processes (where evolution would optimize a particular lifespan).<br><br>Still, given the evolutionary heuristic (http://www.nickbostrom.com/evolution.pdf), if their theory was true then we should be really happy as transhumanists! Because then we would be in a fairly clear-cut case of evolution having different goals than us, and enhancements of ageing would be less likely to have nasty side effects. If ageing is just the result of evolution not caring, then there may also not be any inherently bad side effects of fixing it, but we have far less reason to think there are simple underlying causes we can fix.<br><br>So I doubt their theory, but I would be happy to be disproven. <br><br>Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University<br><br><br><div><strong>
Från:
</strong>
BillK <pharos@gmail.com>
<br>
<strong>
Till:
</strong>
Extropy Chat <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
<br>
<strong>
Skickat:
</strong>
2015-06-16 13:13
<br>
<strong>
Ämne:
</strong>
[ExI] Are Limited Lifespans An Evolutionary Adaptation?
<br><br><blockquote class="mori" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:2px blue solid;padding-left:1ex;">Are Limited Lifespans An Evolutionary Adaptation?<br>George Dvorsky 6/12/15<br><br><http://io9.com/are-limited-lifespans-an-evolutionary-adaptation-1710634703><br><br>Quotes:<br>By running variations of their model hundreds of thousands of times, a<br>research team led by Yaneer Bar-Yam from the New England Complex<br>Systems Institute (NECSI), in collaboration with the Harvard Wyss<br>Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, observed that<br>evolution favors shorter lifespans in environments where resources are<br>scarce and when pressures to procreate are particularly intense. The<br>simulations appeared to show that lifespans of animals — humans<br>included — are genetically conditioned, and not the result of gradual<br>wear-and-tear. It’s a surprising result, one that gives added credence<br>to the burgeoning paradigm known as “programmed aging.”<br><br>Without genetically programmed aging, he argues, animals wouldn’t be<br>able to leave sufficient resources for their offspring. And this holds<br>true for all animals, whether they be rabbits, dolphins, or humans.<br><br>Fascinatingly, group selection — the idea that natural selection acts<br>at the group level — was never a consideration in the model. Yet the<br>simulations consistently showed that a built-in life expectancy<br>emerged among the simulated organisms to preserve the integrity of<br>their species over time. This is surprising because a pro-group result<br>was produced via an individualized selectional process.<br><br>“Beyond a certain point of living longer, you over-exploit local<br>resources and leave reduced resources for your offspring that inhabit<br>the same area,” Bar-Yam said. “And because of that, it turns out that<br>it’s better to have a specific lifespan than a lifespan of arbitrary<br>length. So, when it comes to the evolution of lifespans, the longest<br>possible lifespans are not selected for.”<br>------------<br><br>This new theory is still controversial and the article continues to<br>discuss the alternatives.<br>Aubrey de Grey also comments.<br><br>But I like it. Resource driven ageing via evolution just seems 'right'.<br><br>BillK<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>extropy-chat mailing list<br>extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<br>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat<br><br><br></blockquote></div></body></html>