If the general trend is that evolutionary processes and our instincts seek to increase our survival then why didn't we evolve to be non-aging species?

Submitted by SPeaakingtoyouRaddit in Science (edited )

If we were non-aging species then surely our survival would be more probable than if we were among the aging species.

(You can read more about non-aging species here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligible_senescence As well as for biologically immortal species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality )


You must log in or register to comment.


jadedctrl wrote (edited )

Evolutionary proccesses don't decide what would be more beneficial before it happens-- they only react to change in a species after it has occured. No human happened to evolved (random chance, random incremental mutations) to be non-aging, thus evolutionary proccesses couldn't react and favour them.
EDIT: Wording


NEOalquimista wrote (edited )

Yes, it's a little hard to picture how this works. Our nature makes no plans. It is subject to the randomness of the universe. A slight change in the environment is enough to force the processes of life to deviate a bit; not because it somehow "feels" it's needed, but by the logic itself - the way its mechanisms work. The machinery of life is extremely sensitive to changes.


WhereIsMyFreeStuff wrote (edited )

Negligible senescence is associated with increased telomere length. Longer telomeres are hypothesised to promote formation of cancers, but also the 'recycling' of telomeres by telomerase is energetically expensive.

Therefore, since evolution occurs over long periods of time, humans may just not yet have adjusted to the abundance of energy available to those who can afford it.

Here is an article I found on the topic

Edit: wasn't quite happy with my wording