From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 20:32:07 MDT
On 7/24/2003, 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.
>
>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 ... feasible to do so ...
>*We don't maximize family size per generation* ...
I agree that we don't, and it seems that you agree this is a temporary
evolutionary aberration due slow adaptation of DNA coded behavior.
What is it that you are saying that you don't think I agree with?
> >>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.
I'm not following yet. Are you saying that our behavior today is the way
to maximize the number of great-great- .... -great-grand-children? Or
are you saying that evolution is maximizing something else?
> >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.
The key question is whether "wallowing in poisoned waste" and "self-destructive
violence" will (1) actually reduce the number of distant progeny we will have,
or (2) just make some lives less nice by some Ethical standard.
We can think of case (1) as evolutionary selection favoring a strategy
of reflection and coordination. It is not an end run around evolution, but
just certain kinds of genes being selected for over other genes. Case (2)
is where we are in fact "all buggered" from your point of view. In this
case evolution will not select for the things you think are ethical.
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 - 20:40:11 MDT