For most species, that’s probably true, but not for us, because we can have major influence on our offspring long after we’re done reproducing. Elderly humans can still teach their grandchildren how to knap flint and find the ripe berries and all of our other survival skills. Which is probably why we’re such an outlier in our lifespan, because unlike most species, evolution did have a handle on it for us.
So what exactly is the length of life we should aiming for, beyond which extending it becomes pointless or even detrimental?
Sure, we have a relatively long lifespan compared to most other species for these reasons. But is has still never been a direct objective of natural selection to maximize lifespan. At some point, for humans too, trading off a shorter life for other fitness advantages was a better strategy in the EEA (the ancestral environment in which our current traits evolved).
Were they? Why would you say so?
The natural state of human beings includes things like dying in childbirth around 2% of the time (per birth, much higher chance of death for any given woman in a lifetime)… or most children not making it to adulthood. It includes cholera and plague and death.
Humans evolved alongside bacteria, and for 99% of that time we had basically no defense against them, aside from whatever resistance their immune system could muster.
Vaccination is unnatural life extension. Using antibiotics is unnatural life extension. Clothing, sharp sticks, agriculture… all unnatural life extensions.
Drawing a distinction between ponchos, houses, wheat, or the domestic cow on the one hand, and genetic engineering or nanotech on the other, is simply irrationally favoring developments that happen to have occurred before you were born while scoffing at new ones.
What makes some deaths “early”, if the “natural” state is that many things like a small infected cut or a breech birth are fatal?
This is true but it doesn’t mean we are necessarily selected for living as long as possible. Having grandma around is handy when the kids are young, but when they start having kids of their own (and when mom goes through menopause), they become extra mouths for the tribe to feed.
The thing that’s deeply weird is how anyone ever got the idea that quality of life and longer life are (or will in the future be) negatively correlated, when throughout history and across different contemporary subpopulations they are so obviously hugely positively correlated.
Lowest lifespans - Chad, Nigeria, Lesotho, CAR, South Sudan, Somalia; or all human ancestral populations compared to today. Are/were people there having more fun? I doubt it. And wherever/whenever you live, in most cases death does not come suddenly out of the blue. Slowly dying from aging or disease is miserable living.
I think what has happened is that in our futile search for ultimate meaning, death has always been present, and our psychological need to cope with the reality of bereavement or our own mortality has been distorted into portraying death as a virtue. It’s a major project of most religions.
This discussion reminds me of the old poem The Deacon’s Masterpiece
Or
The Wonderful “one-Hoss Shay”
A Logical Story
By Oliver Wendell Homes
TL:DR - because the shay (a horse carriage) was built with no weak points it fell apart all at once, suddenly.
Here’s a weird statistic; the percentage of people who die “unnatural” deaths (ie those not related to health problems) seems to remain pretty constant even when tracked over the course of centuries. Which doesn’t seem to make sense. You’d think that things like the invention of electricity and automobiles or the shift from a predominantly rural to a predominantly urban population would all have significant effects on death rates. But it seems these shifts somehow balance out.
One theory is that people have an instinctive feel for risk. Society essentially accepts a certain level of accidental and/or violent deaths. If the percentage starts to rise, we collectively become more cautious and it it falls we collectively become more risk-prone. And these decisions are made mostly unconsciously.
Precisely. The CGPGrey video portrayed this as Stockholm Syndrome which feels spot on.
As long as magic entered the room… They should also be able to predict my exact time of dying. In that case, I’ll drive a 1966 Ford Thunderbird off of the side of the Grand Canyon the day before.
Risk compensation/homeostasis is certainly a real psychological phenomenon, although it’s controversial to what extent it applies to any specific behavior. The notorious example is whether bicycle helmets should be mandatory. There are so many unexpected effects like passing cars driving measurably closer to bicyclists who are wearing helmets.
And anyone honest knows that they are not immune to the effect. I carry emergency GPS devices that will summon rescue when hiking/scrambling in the backcountry, and I almost certainly take more risk because I know I have them, however much I might try to avoid the temptation.
But it’s very surprising that the rate of accidental death would not have changed at all. What’s your source for this?
The doctor who oversaw my father-in-law’s death (that was where he was heading after his second stroke, and everyone but him knew it) told us accurately that he would ultimately die of pneumonia. This was after the cardiologist who was desperately trying to keep him from dying from arrhythmia put in a pacemaker, and the doctor who was desperately trying to keep him alive after the stroke that was brought on by the pacemaker put in a feeding tube because he couldn’t swallow food without aspirating it.
If medicine comes up with a way to prevent organs from failing that alows us to actually live in a meaningful way, I suppose that would be great. I’m guessing that the birth rate would have to fall farther and we’d have to figure out how to get all those old people to continue working. Right now, all the superannuated people they show on the news for their 100-and-whatever birthdays look like they’re being propped up by a lot of caretakers and a whole bunch of cash.
But the rules of magic say you can’t defeat your destiny, so you’ll survive in agony until the next day, when you’ll die on schedule but in considerably less comfort than if you hadn’t tried to fight your fate.
Too bad you weren’t more genre-savvy.
I’m going to call bullshit on this unless you have a compelling contrary cite. I can’t yet find long term historical estimates, but for the last century where we have reliable data, what this study calls “preventable” deaths (which appears to mean accidental injury) decreased by two thirds from 1900 to its low point in the 1990s. What is susprising is how sharply it seems to have risen in the last ten years. It seems to be largely attributable to “poisoning”, which presumably means drug abuse.
https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/historical-preventable-fatality-trends/standardized-rate/
D’oh! In that case I’ll swallow a bottle of pain pills right before driving off.
Feel free. I can’t cite my source. It’s something I read a year or two ago and it was counter-intuitive enough that I remembered it. But I can’t recall offhand where I read it and I don’t feel motivated enough to track it down.
I can say I did read this and didn’t just make it up. But whether you choose to believe me or not is up to you.
Then don’t get all huffy about it. I’m not questioning your honest belief in your memory of what you think you read, but my degree of confidence in statistics (especially statistics that make extraordinary counterintuitive claims) is based on examining them first hand.
Hee hee hee. That book literally changed my life; I was so taken with it that I became a strict vegetarian (not vegan) for fully 7 years afterwards. If I’d heard him say that, the phase might not have lasted so long. (30 years on, still can’t bring myself to drink milk, though, because of that book.)
The factoid is intriguing enough that I tried a quick google. So far at least that at least in the UK over the last 70 years it is true. Other cause Ave gone up and down as a share but “accident suicide and violence” as a group seems stable.
Interesting.
Also in the USA 1900 to 2010.
Maybe a bit higher if you add suicide which wasn’t in the 1900 list …