←back to thread

279 points petethomas | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
pinkmuffinere ◴[] No.45298755[source]
It’s tempting to see things like this and think “well of course it does, because that’s how we evolved”. But I think that might just be post-rationalization? At the very least, I think the argument _doesn’t_ hold for periodic famine, extreme temperatures, most disease, etc even though we also evolved with those things. Is there any guiding principle that separates the things-we-evolved-with-that-are-good vs the -that-are-bad? Or is it really just a case-by-case examination?
replies(5): >>45298762 #>>45299023 #>>45299467 #>>45299663 #>>45304373 #
qalmakka ◴[] No.45299663[source]
Exactly - as if evolution cared enough about keeping us healthy after childbearing age. It's hard to state "yeah we've evolved to live like that, of course it's good for us" because clearly keeping us alive after the age of 40 really wasn't _that_ necessary for human survival. There's a lot of perfectly natural stuff that hurts us, including sunlight. Most cancers will only occur in the latter half of our lives, where usually a human historically had already had several children that are now old enough to survive on their own.
replies(2): >>45307719 #>>45308617 #
1. DoctorOetker ◴[] No.45308617[source]
Selection pressure does not simply select on "did or did not reproduce" it selects on reproduction rate (compare 2 individuals, both having parented a first child, but one dies afterwards while the other continues to occasionally reproduce before dying. The latter displays higher fitness.

Its like any poisson process, a recent event does not inherently lower the probability density for the next event.

Achieving the minimum necessary for reproduction is not representative of the distribution of reproductive success scores.