From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 13:21:42 MDT
On 7/23/2003, Damien Broderick 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.
Our behavior is roughly what was optimal for having the most progeny
a hundred thousand years ago, but much of that behavior is hard-coded
in our genes, and genetic evolution is rather slow at adapting to our
now rapidly changing environment. With direct genetic modification,
uploads, etc., soon that adaptation should become much more rapid,
allowing evolution to catch up with our changing environment.
>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.
Yes, though such subtly isn't that relevant for the above analysis.
>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?
Bodies, genes, uploads, and memes should co-evolve. But I don't see how
that makes memes "principal", or that it gives any long term hope for a
stationary population far below the feasible maximum.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 13:40:30 MDT