> I don't think it's necessarily correct to think of sleep in terms of "it is necessary for animals or they will die". It might be more useful to think of it as "it was so useful that animals who slept outcompeted all the animals who didn't".

You're talking about different things: biological necessity and evolutionary benefit.

You can find out about the former by preventing an animal from sleeping (but otherwise provide all other needed things), and seeing if it will eventually die.

▲

sillysaurusx 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> You can find out about the former by preventing an animal from sleeping (but otherwise provide all other needed things), and seeing if it will eventually die.

That is actually almost impossible to do. The rat study was as close as we’ve ever come, and it’s still debated whether the rats died due to lack of sleep or some other mechanism, since the autopsy couldn’t confirm a cause of death. (It could have been due to the way the experiment ran, for example, not the lack of sleep.)

▲

michaelmrose an hour ago | parent [-]

What about fatal familial insomnia in humans

	▲	vitamark an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If I remember correctly, fatal insomnia shares most symptoms with other prion diseases (in which there might be no lack of sleep involved), so it's probably the brain damage that causes death, not insomnia itself.