[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.