Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

One argument is that death and limited lifespans are advantageous for the species overall. More sex, gene mixing and having offspring is better and allows for faster adaptations.

Plus ideas can change faster as culture changes.

That said, there may be ways to overcome this and I still think it's worth working on not having to die. Though trying to determine purpose behind existential questions becomes difficult pretty quickly.

Even if we figure it out since sex and having children is core to biological life and the basis for the replicating genetic code that eventually lead to us - not sure how we'd solve that. Guess we also better get working on space colonization for our start trek future.




Advantageous for species in general, maybe, but for an increasingly knowledge-based species, I don't think this still holds true. We spend our first 20+ years in training just to be able to contribute to society, and then only have 40-50 productive years left to work. This seems incredibly wasteful.

I'd be interested to know how our species' life span has changed over the past few million years. We live significantly longer than other great apes, that's probably relevant.


> ...advantageous for the species...

What about saving premature babies and babies with congenital diseases?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: