Hacker News Reader

Vague, unsupported claims that someone with better genes in a stable population requires someone else to die. How about, not be born? Or cause some other person not to reproduce at all by competing for mates more successfully?

This is what happens when philosophers try to do math etc.

View on HN

From the article: "We ought to add some nuance. For each incremental increase in the frequency of the beneficial mutation, it’s not technically a death that’s called for, but only the failure of one individual to survive and reproduce. Maybe someone just doesn’t get to have her allotted offspring. The point is only that the parent’s genetic lineage must come to an end. But in nature, that usually means mortality for either the prospective parent or the offspring. A reasonable shorthand is, well, just death."

This is what happens when skimmers comment.

Nope. Saw that. That's where they glossed over the more likely outcome (fail to reproduce) and said well, probably somebody dies. Not supported, not necessarily the true mechanism. Which was my point - to make the title of the article seem correct, they whitewashed that entire mechanism. "The Price of Life Is Death" is clickbait in that sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com