From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 17:25:47 MDT
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 02:04:38AM +0400, naccts wrote:
>
> The core of my ramblings is this: Isn't it a natural proccess that
> there should always be superiors and inferiors? Or else how can there
> be any evolution/progress? If all entities were equal, wouldn't that
> mean stagnancy and eventually enthropy?
"Should" is a troublesome word. Should as in a moral ought, or should as
in always present? And why the assumption that evolution is always good
or present? (The last sentence has a partial answer: without evolution
random drift is likely to decrease average fitness)
> Evolution, the way I understand it, involves changes, differences.
Yes. Or at least differential selection. However, the amount of
variability in the genome that produces the maximal expected increase in
fitness varies over time. Imagine a fitness landscape with a single
peak in the otherwise fairly flat surface, and a population starting
somewhere down on the plain. At the start the optimal variance is very
high, but most individuals have the same fitness. Then a few find the
foothills of the mountain, and the differences in fitness between
individuals increase. As the population climbs the mountain the optimal
variance decreases, since the maximum is more likely closer than far
away. Eventually the population ends up on the top and variance should
be very small - there is no more fitness to find, and everybody has
nearly the same fitness again.
So the thing to look for is not differences in *outcome* but differences
in *opportunity*, which cause the former.
> If we want to evolve, does
> that mean that at some time, we will have to consider the rest of
> humanity as inferiors (lower on the
> intellectual/emotional/physical/etc chain)? How does that fit into
> our ethical code of conduct?
Why assume a chain (i.e. a scalar fitness)? Things are far more
multidimensional, and one can evolve towards many different niches and
goals. I do not see a chain of being as a goal, but rather an immense
tree of clades.
Besides, why assume evolution to be the goal? As I see it the transhuman
goal is improvement of the human condition, but that is a process that
we seek to take control over rather than leave to impersonal forces.
Evolution is a *means* to an end ((trans)human happiness), not an end in
itself. We will seek the best tools available for autoevolution, but
since it is such a complex process with many potential goals and
non-obvious dead-ends we need a diversity of approaches in order to find
the best ways to do it. Hence it would be a waste to not cooperate with
the majority, since they have the diversity resources to try
alternatives (beside the more obvious economic and political resources).
Looking down on people is self medication for low self-esteem, but it is
not a cure.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 17:34:47 MDT