>There only needs to not be a reason we need it to survive long enough to reproduce.
Humans had life expectancy even shorter than our fertility period until recently and they developed as social species hundreds of thousands years ago, for which living beyond fertility period is beneficial (grandparents were invented by evolution too).
> And bear in mind that most people don't have a problem surviving colds
That’s modern people with access to antibiotics etc.
> that was probably more true for much of our evolutionary history when we were living much more isolated lives, and not cohabiting with chickens and pigs
For much of our evolutionary history people were eating animals, getting viruses with them.
> That’s modern people with access to antibiotics etc.
Antibiotics don't help against viruses like colds. And we live a life that is has a higher degree of social connectivity than our ancestors, allowing for faster spreading of disease, so we're arguably worse off.
> Humans had life expectancy even shorter than our fertility period
That's largely due to infant/child mortality. Once you reached reproductive age, life expectancy was roughly 50, plenty of time to have plenty of kids.
Yes, and to get there we use immunity that is activated on demand. Clearly that was better from evolutionary perspective than preactivation or always-on.
> Yes, and to get there we use immunity that is activated on demand. Clearly that was better from evolutionary perspective than preactivation or always-on.
I don't think you understand evolution. Neither needs to be "better" for anything other than survival to reproduction. Evolution isn't min-maxing in a video game.
I don’t think you understand it, if you cannot connect the dots. And of course “survival for reproduction” is oversimplification of what’s actually happening. Chances for survival to reproduce of some individuals are greatly influenced by survival of their relatives in the same group. The traits that help whole group to survive will win in natural selection, including those that extend survival beyond what’s necessary to reproduce to what’s beneficial for the group.
> I don’t think you understand it, if you cannot connect the dots.
This doesn't mean anything.
> Chances for survival to reproduce of some individuals are greatly influenced by survival of their relatives in the same group. The traits that help whole group to survive will win in natural selection, including those that extend survival beyond what’s necessary to reproduce to what’s beneficial for the group.
Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with whether current traits are optimized for perfection, or simply sufficient for continued reproduction. Again, evolution isn't min-maxing your video game character. I'm not clear why you have such strident opinions on something you don't understand very well.
If you think that repeating the same sentence twice would make it a better argument, maybe you should think again. Saying “it’s not X”, when nobody claimed X is quite strange way to prove anything.
I suppose "repeatedly" complaining about how someone says you're wrong is easier than admitting you had no idea what you were talking about in the first place. Seems like a suboptimal life strategy, though.
Humans had life expectancy even shorter than our fertility period until recently and they developed as social species hundreds of thousands years ago, for which living beyond fertility period is beneficial (grandparents were invented by evolution too).
> And bear in mind that most people don't have a problem surviving colds
That’s modern people with access to antibiotics etc.
> that was probably more true for much of our evolutionary history when we were living much more isolated lives, and not cohabiting with chickens and pigs
For much of our evolutionary history people were eating animals, getting viruses with them.