alt Hacker News> If your reaction times, intelligence, etc are always good, and your experience and memories get better, it just seems like you'd out compete your kids and younger cohorts.
On the other hand, always being around as a sort of Protector to protect your kids seems like it would generally be good for your genes. (Of course, you'd have to fight off other Protectors who are doing the same...)
Replies
This is where being a real parent vs a theoretical one makes a huge difference to your take. After seeing how much damage to their kids people adapted _their_ childhood do, I've started to think that humans should die around 40 with reproduction age being between 10 to 20 - like most other great apes. It's only in increadibly stable environments that waiting for as long as we do for children that it makes sence.
How this number is going to change in the future with exponential growth in the environment is left as an exercise to the reader.
Right, but should your kids get your protection? You can protect them to adulthood now, even your grandkids.
But 1000 generations of unassailable, un-evolving, 40IQ lions doesn't get you to the galaxy.
Hey, maybe this is the fermi paradox.
Not if that protection ended up making your offspring weaker. Some adversity is necessary to develop resilience and self-sufficiency.
One's kids may disagree.
Imagine still having helicopter parents at 50 years old.
Finally mankind can return to it's intended 3-phase form of existence as described by Niven