Abundance leads to more frequent selection, less the need for long life (not aging). A virus or germ might only need hours.
So then wouldn’t it follow that the opposite be true? Extremely rare single cell life forms needing the time to bump into each other or find a mechanism where by it splits into two. Not aging would be highly advantageous and yet still some calamity would at some point befall the cell, so not immortality.
Later, when there’s an abundance of these theoretically creature, aging would then become advantageous.
Seems like something you could extrapolate from Darwin’s theory. (For arguments sake.)
Abundance requires better selection — rather than simply more frequent selection.
When food (resources) are plentiful, the winning strategy is to be more selective — and not less — which is obviously the mistake of the morbidly obese, drug abusers, and lottery winners — who all of a sudden think they have to have multiple houses and cars, which increases their liabilities and shortens their lifespans by making them more vulnerable to the viruses, bacteria, fungi, injuries and accidents.
That should have been the primary lesson of the “pandemic,” but instead was misplaced for the necessity of vaccinating the least vulnerable — in the idiotic notion that that would increase the immunity of the least capable by averaging it out — as the undiscriminating wokesters like to believe.
Aging is a function of time — but we recognize that some age well while most age badly, or poorly — largely because of the bad lifestyle choices they make — doing whatever turns them on at the moment. These invariably have longterm and lifetime implications. That is the crux of the problem — and not finding miracle vaccines to prolong one’s life in longterm care centers — just because they have all the money in the world, and the fundraisers know how to work them out of it.