Comment by rlpb

Comment by rlpb 10 months ago

4 replies

> ...a really hard problem that evolution has spent billions of generations on...

I think it's worth noting that this isn't evolution's "goal". We just need to produce offspring and give them a good start in life such that they are competitively successful. Beyond that, evolution doesn't care.

Even for that, there's a budget. If it's not economical over letting us die and not taking valuable resources from our offspring, then evolution also doesn't care.

photochemsyn 10 months ago

That could suggest why longevity in humans (or primates ) was under active selection, as they put a lot of effort into raising the children so you'd expect that cancer in younger people would result in the death of their children, so evolution selects for robust anti-cancer systems (like the human immune system, which is relatively good at detecting and eliminating cancer cells as well as pathogenic bacteria, etc.).

These explanations are however always a bit hand-wavy, eg why do galapagos tortoises live to 150 when they don't seem to do much parental investment?

  • rlpb 10 months ago

    There must be other evolutionary pressures that change cancer resistance as a side effect.

tjpnz 10 months ago

Having grandparents around to care for the young would allow for more procreation.

  • rlpb 10 months ago

    Yes, but only to a limit. The resource cost in ensuring longevity must be less than the benefit provided in caring for the young.