4 ms·

Or maybe the jump from biological to technological is actually really really ridiculously hard. We didn't evolve in a vacuum...we share and shared the earth wi

by daenz 10y ago

Or maybe the jump from biological to technological is actually really really ridiculously hard. We didn't evolve in a vacuum...we share and shared the earth with many other vicious species and environmental effects, and we had to come out on top. We had to evolve certain behaviors to even make it to the technological point. And the persistence of those behaviors in our evolutionary memory is what ensured we survived. And now we're just supposed to shed them off because of 100 years of technology? People are thinking too micro. Change does not happen that fast. You can't shed off in-group preferences, general selfishness, and combativeness because those are the things that literally pushed us into these higher stages of evolution. Personally I think the earth isn't fit for a long term evolution of a technological species, if its environment starts collapsing so soon. Again, 100 years is nothing in the grand scheme of things, and people are arguing that 100 years of technology is destroying the earth. We need a lot longer than 100 years to get anywhere useful.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Not necessarily -- we just need the 5% of humans who survive the disaster to be the smart, appropriate-to-advance ones. Evolution is full of times that a species reached a chokepoint and a subgroup with a trait was selected for. No reason ecological disaster caused by technology couldn't be one of those times, even if unfortunate for most humans. Heck, global ecological disaster could be viewed as a copy-cat oxygenation event prompted by intelligent psychopaths to make room for their offspring in a crowded field. tl;dr: Humans are just parodying the great oxygenation event with the great carbonation event.
- daenz 10y ago
  I see your point, but it makes the assumption that there is a good biological trait to be selected for, and I'm unconvinced that accumulated wealth is a signal of that trait.

by daenz 10y ago

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

Not necessarily -- we just need the 5% of humans who survive the disaster to be the smart, appropriate-to-advance ones. Evolution is full of times that a species reached a chokepoint and a subgroup with a trait was selected for. No reason ecological disaster caused by technology couldn't be one of those times, even if unfortunate for most humans. Heck, global ecological disaster could be viewed as a copy-cat oxygenation event prompted by intelligent psychopaths to make room for their offspring in a crowded field. tl;dr: Humans are just parodying the great oxygenation event with the great carbonation event.

daenz 10y ago
I see your point, but it makes the assumption that there is a good biological trait to be selected for, and I'm unconvinced that accumulated wealth is a signal of that trait.