5 ms·

I'm interested in comparing your perspective with the people in favor of ethnicity-based political states. I imagine they want a future where their genes carry

I'm interested in comparing your perspective with the people in favor of ethnicity-based political states. I imagine they want a future where their genes carry on while you are interested in "knowledge that lasts" You could say they are gene-centric and you are meme-centric? Of two futures, which would you prefer? 1. Where your descendants/relatives are alive but have little in common with your values (eg compare bronze age to now) 2. You have no genetic descendants/relatives but whatever exists (robots, aliens, planet of the apes) shares your value system.

staplers 9y ago
Are you suggesting that by mating with similar 'ethnicity' that someones genes are more likely to carry on? I thought it was common knowledge that more diverse DNA has a better chance at survival. Seems like you're suggesting inbreeding is favorable for procreation.
- ardfie 9y ago
  According to this source, third-cousin pairings are the sweet spot https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-best-kissi/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-be...
  - kypro 9y ago
    Thanks for sharing. That's fascinating, I would have never expected that.
- haihaibye 9y ago
  It's complicated. There's the paper linked in the other comment, there's hybrid vigor, and also people with rare phenotypes eg have trouble getting organ donations. There's a diversity of phenotypes around the world because groups of humans have been in reproductive isolation. I'm sure that will continue for various reasons (assortive mating, religion or immigration restriction like many East Asian countries). From memory you need <2% inter-marriage rate per generation for your group to diverge. Some people want to preserve reproductively isolated groups, rather than form a larger gene pool (though this is betting against human lust and cheap air travel) If you are more related to your country than to the average human on earth (true historically), and your country adopt pro-natal policies rather than immigration of people who are genetically distant from you, you would increase the number of genes similar to you in the global population.
evrydayhustling 9y ago
I advocate the same perspective towards both genes 'n memes: stop trying to preserve your current configuration verbatim, and start trying to participate in a process that iteratively adapts and improves. Some examples: - Marry / procreate with an opposite you're attracted to. - End stasis-inducing IP monopolies. - Let other people contribute to your codebase when practical. - Focus on trying to benefit from immigration rather than eliminating it. - Don't let political units at any level get so powerful that you can never refactor your culture in a different way. Regarding your contingencies, I put zero probability on my creations (kids, code, businesses) resembling me for long. I wouldn't wish them to as I doubt I'll be useful in their world. I'd like it if they could trace part of their prosperity to values or traits I imparted, but you have to find notions of continuity and contribution that aren't just a distance function from yourself.
- haihaibye 9y ago
  >> I put zero probability on my creations (kids, code, businesses) resembling me for long. I wouldn't wish them to I think this is a good attitude (or maybe just acceptance of the inevitable!)
danans 9y ago
> Of two futures, which would you prefer? > 1. Where your descendants/relatives are alive but have little in common with your values (eg compare bronze age to now) > 2. You have no genetic descendants/relatives but whatever exists (robots, aliens, planet of the apes) shares your value system. That's a false choice, based on these flawed assumptions: - That genetic descent somehow diminishes the transmission of culture (or "memes" as you call it). - That we don't have many bronze age values today. We do have them, evidenced by the fact that many people follow values of religions established in the bronze age. - That the inevitable result of what you call a "meme-centric" direction of progress is genetic extinction for humans.
- haihaibye 9y ago
  Good points. >> many bronze age values today Most people have adopted the bronze age values of tribes other than their ancestors. There are 4B Muslims and Christians, but only 15M Jews, so Abraham has over 250x as many carriers of his ideas as carriers of his genes.
  - danans 9y ago
    > There are 4B Muslims and Christians, but only 15M Jews, so Abraham has over 250x as many carriers of his ideas as carriers of his genes. Do we know that Abraham was a specific person whose genes we can trace rather than a mythological character? Even if you assume he was a real person, how can we be certain that the common ideas in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism originated with him? There's quite a bit of evidence that it was cobbled together over time from many sources (Israel, Egypt, Sumeria, Mesopotamia, etc.)

staplers 9y ago

Are you suggesting that by mating with similar 'ethnicity' that someones genes are more likely to carry on? I thought it was common knowledge that more diverse DNA has a better chance at survival. Seems like you're suggesting inbreeding is favorable for procreation.

ardfie 9y ago
According to this source, third-cousin pairings are the sweet spot https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-best-kissi/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-incest-is-be...
- kypro 9y ago
  Thanks for sharing. That's fascinating, I would have never expected that.
haihaibye 9y ago
It's complicated. There's the paper linked in the other comment, there's hybrid vigor, and also people with rare phenotypes eg have trouble getting organ donations. There's a diversity of phenotypes around the world because groups of humans have been in reproductive isolation. I'm sure that will continue for various reasons (assortive mating, religion or immigration restriction like many East Asian countries). From memory you need <2% inter-marriage rate per generation for your group to diverge. Some people want to preserve reproductively isolated groups, rather than form a larger gene pool (though this is betting against human lust and cheap air travel) If you are more related to your country than to the average human on earth (true historically), and your country adopt pro-natal policies rather than immigration of people who are genetically distant from you, you would increase the number of genes similar to you in the global population.

evrydayhustling 9y ago

I advocate the same perspective towards both genes 'n memes: stop trying to preserve your current configuration verbatim, and start trying to participate in a process that iteratively adapts and improves. Some examples: - Marry / procreate with an opposite you're attracted to. - End stasis-inducing IP monopolies. - Let other people contribute to your codebase when practical. - Focus on trying to benefit from immigration rather than eliminating it. - Don't let political units at any level get so powerful that you can never refactor your culture in a different way. Regarding your contingencies, I put zero probability on my creations (kids, code, businesses) resembling me for long. I wouldn't wish them to as I doubt I'll be useful in their world. I'd like it if they could trace part of their prosperity to values or traits I imparted, but you have to find notions of continuity and contribution that aren't just a distance function from yourself.

haihaibye 9y ago
>> I put zero probability on my creations (kids, code, businesses) resembling me for long. I wouldn't wish them to I think this is a good attitude (or maybe just acceptance of the inevitable!)

danans 9y ago

> Of two futures, which would you prefer? > 1. Where your descendants/relatives are alive but have little in common with your values (eg compare bronze age to now) > 2. You have no genetic descendants/relatives but whatever exists (robots, aliens, planet of the apes) shares your value system. That's a false choice, based on these flawed assumptions: - That genetic descent somehow diminishes the transmission of culture (or "memes" as you call it). - That we don't have many bronze age values today. We do have them, evidenced by the fact that many people follow values of religions established in the bronze age. - That the inevitable result of what you call a "meme-centric" direction of progress is genetic extinction for humans.

haihaibye 9y ago
Good points. >> many bronze age values today Most people have adopted the bronze age values of tribes other than their ancestors. There are 4B Muslims and Christians, but only 15M Jews, so Abraham has over 250x as many carriers of his ideas as carriers of his genes.
- danans 9y ago
  > There are 4B Muslims and Christians, but only 15M Jews, so Abraham has over 250x as many carriers of his ideas as carriers of his genes. Do we know that Abraham was a specific person whose genes we can trace rather than a mythological character? Even if you assume he was a real person, how can we be certain that the common ideas in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism originated with him? There's quite a bit of evidence that it was cobbled together over time from many sources (Israel, Egypt, Sumeria, Mesopotamia, etc.)