|
|
|
|
|
|
by ryandvm
2455 days ago
|
|
|
Long _natural_ lifetimes are a fundamentally at odds with evolutionary progress. The lifespan of a species is directly related to how quickly that species can iterate generationally. Fewer generations mean less natural selection, which means a less evolved life form. Also, if the organisms don't die off fast enough, they end up competing with their own offspring for resources. That said, I would imagine that once most life forms get to the point that they are able to extend their lifespans with technology, they probably always do. They just don't evolve anymore... |
|
|
I'm not sure I see that. For example, humans live many orders of magnitude longer than bacteria and yet we have both evolved just fine.
Anyway, I don't see why a species is pressed to evolve quickly in absolute terms. If all species on a given world evolve lifetimes many orders of magnitude longer than on the Earth, then there's no reason for any particular species to hurry.
I think how long or short a species' lifetime is can only be understood in the context of the environment in which it evolves. In any case, we don't know anything about life on other worlds, and my point is that we can't really make such big assumptions based on the single example we're aware of.