[alexschnapp]

There is no more evolutionary pressure on lifespan after you have children since you have successfully passed on the ‘aging’ gene. We used to live much shorter lives, being able to die of old age was rare, therefore, no selection. If we start to have children at 90 years old we may be able to double our lifespans (while the ones that are unable to reproduce earlier will not pass on that inability).

There is no cheating, since we could not modify our genomes and give ourselves superpowers. We cannot live forever because there was no need. We won’t die before we can successfully reproduce.

[Terr_]

> There is no more evolutionary pressure on lifespan after you have children since you have successfully passed on the ‘aging’ gene.

This assumes, incorrectly, that each generation of children are birthed into a new separate pocket-universe, where absolutely nothing prior generations do next--including suddenly dying--can ever affect their own trajectories.

Consider genes Alpha and Beta, where Alpha kills women right after menopause, and the Beta lets them live ably to 120. Do you really think there's no difference between the trajectories of clan Alpha and clan Beta?

Or perhaps a Cronus gene [0] which increases fitness and lifespan but causes paranoid infanticide. Just because a gene-copy was made doesn't mean the gene stops mattering.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Devouring_His_Son

[hinkley]

Elephant matriarchs remember old watering holes that the herd has not visited in decades, and in extreme cases, watering holes that none of the other living members have ever seen.

In drought years these backups may end up getting the herd through the worst of it.

And it turns out that for elephants, water availability is one of the biggest limitations on reproduction. Provide a population with an artificial water source and it will explode in short order.

[alexschnapp]

If your offspring does not survive to reproduce, your genetic lineage disappears, therefore ‘failed’. Others who do not kill their offspring will survive and the species will therefore not exhibit that behavior nor enjoy the benefits of that behavior.

[Terr_]

> If your offspring does not survive to reproduce

First you declared genes had no evolutionary pressure on longevity after children existed... but now you're amending it to grand-children existing?

Well, what about great-grandchildren? How many more times must you be forced to move the goalposts before realizing that the logic behind them is simply wrong?

You can't just ignore stuff like kin-selection, which we've known about for over a hundred years already.

[alexschnapp]

This is just assuming that the offspring survives just like the parent and reproduces.

If the offspring requires parenting, the parent, once an offspring, also required parenting and so on.

This is not moving the goalpost, it’s doing the similar things adapted in some ways for the environment every generation.

I assumed you were talking about humans. For salmon, the definition of a successful reproductive cycle is simply reproducing. For humans, it takes longer and requires parenting. But genes don’t get selected away when it’s passed on to the next generation.

[hwbehrens]

That's precisely the point the parent was trying to make to your GP post, namely that

> "There is no more evolutionary pressure on lifespan after you have children"

is an inaccurate oversimplification.

[alexschnapp]

The definition of having children varies by species. For humans, it requires parenting and care, for salmon, just the act of reproduction works.

[tommiegannert]

> If we start to have children at 90 years old

Interesting thought. So if we simply force people to reprocreate later in life, we'll select for genes that allow for that, possibly also bringing longer lifespans in general (to protect the early offspring.)

I wonder if education, and cultural protection of teenagers has already done that to some extent.

In short, the path to immortality is to hold off children longer and longer... Hypothetically.

[jjtheblunt]

> There is no cheating, since we cannot modify our genomes

that reads like you missed the last 10 years of genomics and the Nobel prizes for Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, among other proven DNA/RNA manipulations.

[alexschnapp]

Edited to past tense ‘could not’

[jjtheblunt]

that makes sense!

your point could turn out true, since edits to genomes AND superpowers resulting is what you said wouldn't work. maybe the second half of the conjunctive clause isn't possible, but we don't know yet.

i guess the future will be interesting!