From: Damien Broderick (damienb@unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 19:27:13 MDT
At 03:21 PM 7/23/03 -0400, Robin 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.
This is true by definition but uninformative without the fine grain detail.
The point I was trying to make, via a touch of whimsy, is that almost
nobody today has 20 kids although medical advances and rising income levels
have made it feasible to do so and for the kids to survive and prosper. Now
it's true that 100,000 years ago nobody at all would have had 20 kids, but
50 years ago plenty of families had 6, 8, even 10 offspringen, some of whom
died young. Given the ability today to moderate fertility, almost everyone
nowadays does so. *We don't maximize family size per generation*; if
anything, we minimize it.
>>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.
I believe it is, as I've just tried to show.
>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.
Rafal's post about mice in behavioral sinks followed pretty much the lines
of my implicit argument, even though he ended up not endorsing it. If an
intelligent, reflective animal finds it's about to wallow in its own
poisoned shit, or create conditions where its ancient drives lead it into
almost uncontrollable and self-destructive violence, it has the option of
*modifying* the expression of its biases, its ancient templates, even if
that requires it to... I think the US term is `end-run around'... some of
those powerful but now inappropriate urges.
I hope that's true, anyway, or we're all buggered.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 19:36:13 MDT