posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 03:27 PM
Ok, there are several ways to explain this... think of it this way. You have a choice between car A and car B.
Car A = an old beat-up car, low quality, but very very cheap and easily replacable.
Car B = A sturdier, much more durable and high-quality vehicle, but much more expensive and difficult to replace.
Now suppose I said you are going to go into an enviromnent where there will be lots of boulders and rocks crashing around, plus lots of your fellow
drivers will be drunks or homocides. In other words, there is a high probablity that one way or another your car will be destroyed within, say, one
year at most. It's all statistically provable, the insurance guys have charted it all out.
In this situation, the optimal strategy would be to choose Car A, because either way your car is going to need replacing within a year, and you don't
want to toss out all the cash on the expensive one if it just is going to get totaled anyway.
The analogy is thus: Car A is a mortal being; Car B is an "immortal" or much more long-lived being. I put "immortal" in quotes because it is still
subject to stuff like being crushed by falling rocks or eaten by predators. And in our analogy, the environment with lots of boulders and rocks is our
world, which is indeed a dangerous place full of all kinds of things that could go wrong. Given a world like that, it makes much more "sense" as a
strategy to take the cheap body that reproduces sexually (i.e., Car A, cheap and easily replacable, just like every mortal man), rather than a more
long-lived body. A more long-lived body can't reproduce as often or it would overpopulate and starve. So long-lived animals and plants reproduce less
and more expensively (in terms of energy, effort, etc.), and theoretically an "immortal" animal would reproduce hardly at all. But all animals with
physical bodies are still subject to the laws of physics and there is always a boulder out there big enough to crush you.