Comment by card_zero
2 days ago
Hmm. If we engineer late-life reproduction, that might create evolutionary pressure for healthy old age.
Hides long list of ethical problems with the concept
2 days ago
Hmm. If we engineer late-life reproduction, that might create evolutionary pressure for healthy old age.
Hides long list of ethical problems with the concept
We missed the boat for that a few million years ago. If we're engineering anyway, we might as well engineer for healthy old age directly.
We just have to get the media to portray geriatric men as sexy, and we'll be well on our way to living to 200!
I know you're joking, but it's women that get the short end of the stick in media.
Men are (within reason) considered handsome in media even in old age. Wrinkles and gray hair can be seen as sexy (again, within reason), but only in men.
Women are discarded or relegated to sexless granny roles (except maybe for comedic purposes, where sexuality is the butt of a joke). Actresses are replaced by younger women because they are not sexy enough even when their male equivalents aren't (looking at you, Top Gun: Maverick).
I'm not saying there aren't exceptions in particular movies that deal with this topic; I'm talking about the general trend.
When you ask men who they are attracted to, at least on the surface, it’s always young women. I’m pretty sure the OkCupid stats showed that girls age 20 give or take were peak attractiveness. Reality is of course that guys will “work for food” or attention.
Women are different. It ranges — alot, and is more about EQ and scarcity. If you have a moderate baseline level of physical attractiveness, moderately fit (Jon two miles let’s say), not an asshole, and not living with mom, a 40-60 year old guy is a hot commodity.
12 replies →
Men season, while women age - The media's portrayal of desirability of old people is a reflection of societal preferences, not the other way around.
Men become wiser, skilled, kinder, more patient and often better providers. Women tend to become argumentative, quarrelsome, bitter (especially those who date often) and rewarded for it. They also tend to dissociate love from sex and manipulate one for the other.
1 reply →
There would appear to be two poles of explanation - that either the media is reflecting desires and not influencing it, or that the media is influencing desires and not reflecting them - or somewhere in-between.
The reflection of biological reality appears easier to justify: that men remain fertile for longer, that the attractive qualities that women care about most (e.g. wealth and personality) tend to improve with age; and that a women's attractiveness is most tied to her skin, which we all know shows aging the most on the body, and is a sign of her reproductive health or ability.
I'm not sure what the argument for the media being able to influence males to the extent suggested would be? Older men were marrying younger women before the printing press, so where did this pressure originate? And what is its mechanism of action?
2 replies →
Exactly - there's no female equivalent of "silver fox."
6 replies →
[dead]
[dead]
The main problem is that evolution is just not a thing at our modern civilizational time scale.
And I don’t see any problems with late-life reproduction, assuming we can make it reliable and healthy. If anything, some countries desperately need it.
From my reading this is wrong in principle.
Evolution is really slow on average, but locally it moves quite quickly and probably explains the large variation between members of a species.
Add strong selective pressure to that high local speed and you can change a good part of the genotype within a couple of generations. See: animal husbandry. You can breed a new race of dog within 5-10 generations.
Ethics aside we could probably breed people who can sniff out Alzheimer's in less than 250 years.
Our current late reproduction style will very likely influence future generations health at older ages.
It's probably a wash. Sure people are reproducing later, but it's also more likely that they have recieved some major medical intervention to allow them to make it to that stage. For example, it could be stuff like freezing eggs before starting chemo.
1 reply →
> in less than 250 years
I don't dispute any of your points in general. But at the same time, it brings a nostalgic smile to my face to envision starting a 250-year project in 2025.
Someone needs to remain alive to provide, protect and raise the kids.
Evolution is still a thing at relatively short time periods.
Icelanders are a well-studied population when it comes to genetics. Frequency of some traits meaningfully changed among them in last 100 years.
Source: this book: https://www.amazon.de/dp/0198821263?ref_=pe_109184651_110380...
Also the moths that "changed" from white to black during and because of the industrial revolution. That was quick, and to me, the best example of how it all works.
With our modern health systems we are pretty much a huge evolutionary blind spot ourselves. Many illnesses that would be filtered out because the carrier wouldn't survive, are now trivial. And on the journey hand we can screen for known illnesses.
I think we are already post evolutionary, or control it ourselves. Not a big issue either IMO, it's totally ok that this is happening.
We are definitely not post-evolutionary; the selection pressures have simply changed. Before industrialization the big two were starvation and infectious disease. Now? Well, it's anybody's guess decade to decade. Certainly sexual selection is still with us.
Dawkins suggested this might be viable (In an abstract; not politically practical) way in The Selfish Gene.
I read a pretty entertaining novel where that was one of the sub-plots.
The ethical problems were fun to read about! But would be significantly less fun to live through.
Name of the novel?
It was one of Stephen Baxter's Xeelee series, I believe it was Ring.
1 reply →
We engineered it culturally already. Lots of people delaying childbirth until late 30s, early 40s today, often resorting to expensive treatments.
If we're ignoring ethics, then we don't need late-life reproduction.
Just kill all offspring if one of the parents die of some unwanted cause.
Allows people to still get kids in the optimal age, yet applying old-age selection pressure.