I had a couple-year long obsession with evolution simulators. And that hobby convinced me, that longevity is a pretty risky thing. Most of dominant species in the simulations went extinct not because of new species emerging and conflicting, but because of longevity causing problems.
1) Reduces amount of resources available to the new generation. That increases competition, and this kind of competition is evolutionary force which encourages being a long-living line, because it is easier to accumulate experience and use it later. Creates a feedback loop with increasing longevity. (Some analogue of this can be followed when looking at land properties—young people already have more problems than previous generations) 1.5) if there is no conflict netween generations at first, then overpopulation might lead to the same endpoint. 2) Reduces the frequency of new generations. Thus reduces the adaptation rate of the population. As a result, the whole population is less strong. Smaller crisis (caused by environment or other species) can have stronger effects, because damage can outpace the recovery by birth.
Looking at forest fires stats you can see the same picture. Forests that have regular fires and diversity of ages are quickly recovering. But if a forest did not have regular fires, then eventually a fire will appear and it will be more damaging, with a chance of completely eradicating life in the area.
Longevity for the sake of it is a personal egoistic trait dictated by instincts, and it might not be healthy for the human species as a whole.
Good point. But I think the real game changer will be self-modification tech, not longevity tech. In that case we won’t have a “slow adaptation” problem, but we’ll have a “fast adaptation in weird directions” problem which is probably worse.
I had a couple-year long obsession with evolution simulators. And that hobby convinced me, that longevity is a pretty risky thing. Most of dominant species in the simulations went extinct not because of new species emerging and conflicting, but because of longevity causing problems.
1) Reduces amount of resources available to the new generation. That increases competition, and this kind of competition is evolutionary force which encourages being a long-living line, because it is easier to accumulate experience and use it later. Creates a feedback loop with increasing longevity. (Some analogue of this can be followed when looking at land properties—young people already have more problems than previous generations) 1.5) if there is no conflict netween generations at first, then overpopulation might lead to the same endpoint. 2) Reduces the frequency of new generations. Thus reduces the adaptation rate of the population. As a result, the whole population is less strong. Smaller crisis (caused by environment or other species) can have stronger effects, because damage can outpace the recovery by birth.
Looking at forest fires stats you can see the same picture. Forests that have regular fires and diversity of ages are quickly recovering. But if a forest did not have regular fires, then eventually a fire will appear and it will be more damaging, with a chance of completely eradicating life in the area.
Longevity for the sake of it is a personal egoistic trait dictated by instincts, and it might not be healthy for the human species as a whole.
Good point. But I think the real game changer will be self-modification tech, not longevity tech. In that case we won’t have a “slow adaptation” problem, but we’ll have a “fast adaptation in weird directions” problem which is probably worse.