Do you have any research source for that, please? AFAIK death is more than anything connected to offspring survival. That is not considered to be 'social' by evolutionary biologists.
I’m confused what you want research about. That death and new generations enable our much faster social evolution and inherently improves the bus factor of all our systems? Do you need research to see this?
I would like to see research that connects age of death or death itself with social factors. AFAIK it's connected to offspring survival, which is not a social factor.
I'd just invoke Plank's principle and thousands of other examples right before your eyes. You shouldn't need research when you're swimming in the conclusion.
Sorry but this is going directly against evolutionary biology as it is commonly understood by evolutionary biologists and very successfully used to explain evolution. They don't care about invocations of Planck's principle, that's philosophical pondering, not useful genomics.
Cultural evolution is part of evolution as much as genetic evolution is. In fact cultural evolution in practice supersedes genetic evolution in many places because it adapts and propagates orders of magnitudes faster than genes.
If you want to ignore most of the picture and focus on the part you like, you're like a horse with eye covers. Only what you look at exists, and where you look determines where you want to go. It's not pretty.
I'm open to the broader picture and certainly the human culture has enormous impact on human bodies, the age of death, etc. But the comment I originally reacted to has suggested that death is entirely socially driven, which IMHO needs enormous proof and to me that simply doesn't make sense, as even entirely non-cultural beings die.
