Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!toby
From: toby@castle.ed.ac.uk (R T Tyrrell)
Subject: Re: Reason for Short Life Spans?
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
References: <D164q4.8A6@lincoln.gpsemi.com>
Message-ID: <D17Jou.1uK@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@festival.ed.ac.uk (remote news read deamon)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 10:26:53 GMT
Lines: 22

David Whipp (whipp@roborough.gpsemi.com) wrote:
: In article <shea.1217.000C0A75@marcam.com>, shea@marcam.com (Tim Shea) writes:
: |>c. Just the result of the creature's physical design (i.e. only good for a 
: |>   certain number of years before it "wears out").

: (c) is a non-option - its a result of the genes.

: If a creature can reproduce forever then if older individuals don't have

I don't think it's feasible to talk of individuals living forever.  There
must be a genetic fitness cost in 'building' an animal which can potentially
live forever, rather than just one which will 'get by' for fifty years or so.
And the extra cost of building a potentially immortal animal is not merited
if the animal is likely to die anyway in twenty-thirty years or so, due to
predation, accident, disease or whatever.

Toby Tyrrell
Plymouth Marine Laboratory,
Prospect Place,
Plymouth PL1 3DU.

tt@pml.ac.uk
