You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

wedrifid comments on Does evolution select for mortality? - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: DanArmak 23 February 2013 07:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (55)
Tags: immortality evolution

Comments (55)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wedrifid 25 February 2013 06:23:58AM 0 points [-]

Evolution doesn't select against immortality in any specific case. How could it select against it in general?

The premise is false. (Most straightforwardly: Females eat food and have a finite number of eggs.)

Comment author: Decius 25 February 2013 07:36:24AM 0 points [-]

Therefore females who need not eat food and produce additional eggs die?

Comment author: wedrifid 25 February 2013 07:39:07AM *  0 points [-]

Therefore females who need not eat food and produce additional eggs die?

Therefore, there are specific cases where such an individual's inclusive fitness will be higher if she dies than if she lives. On account of the reproductive offspring not being starved.

Note that this is a rejection of the argument, not necessarily the conclusion.

Comment author: Decius 25 February 2013 10:00:39AM 0 points [-]

What would happen to the offspring of an ageless mother in that circumstance?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit