From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 00:47:01 MDT
Damien writes
> At 10:12 PM 7/22/03 -0400, Robin Hanson wrote:
>
> >given that evolution rules, the only natural preferences
> >are those that result in the "most" progeny, regardless of other
> consequences.
>
> Yes, this explains why all the couples I know have twenty children, like J.
> S. Bach.
Oh, I didn't know you lived in California, I mean Mexifornia. Welcome!
> Oh, wait. Those scare quotes grant that numerical most =/= "most", as the
> latter implies a more subtle metric than simple head-count of offspring in
> any given generation.
What is it with this =/= ? I thought that someone was
clumsily trying to write "not equal", which is != in C.
If you tell me, then Google and I will both know.
> Mightn't we have an aperture here allowing for a stationary future
> population? Especially if the principal replicators are not bodies or even
> individual uploads but powerfully competitive intrapsychic memes?
Could you elaborate? If you mean a meme that says "please behave
yourselves like upper-class Englishmen and please do *not* have
such bad taste to take propagate like, ugh, proles and over the
universe", then I have to join Robin and Mark and ask how in the
world you could believe that such nonsense is not swiftly dealt
with by evolution.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 00:54:58 MDT