3 ms·

"have one fewer child" is the most efficient way to decrease your carbon footprint (see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-foot

"have one fewer child" is the most efficient way to decrease your carbon footprint (see https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your-carbon-footprint-one-government-isn-t-telling-you-about https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/best-way-reduce-your... ) Easy, right? However, I am not sure it is correct. For instance, if you produce less than 2 kids (e.g., 0) AND it was your decision, would not it mean that all the carbon footprint went to adapt/improve your genetic material (including your grand-grand-parents) is a waste in some sense? You are the last one of your branch. Wasn't you fooled to believe you should have no kids? Makes a lot of sense for other branches to fool you and gain a greater ratio of the entire genetic material (this is basically the definition of fitness function in evolutionary biology - to have more offspring / a greater ratio of genetic material). Evolutionary processes at play.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
1) This is a sunk cost fallacy. Think of all the fossil fuel infrastructure, wouldn't it be a waste to stop using it? 2) Your goals and goals of your genes are not the same. You should care about as much about your genes as your genes care for you (not at all)
- account73466 7y ago
  To truly answer such questions you should have a (set of) metrics to measure what is better and run parallel universes for a significant amount of time to check which version is better according to your metrics. >> Think of all the fossil fuel infrastructure, wouldn't it be a waste to stop using it? Most likely, it would be a waste to stop using it right now. >> Your goals and goals of your genes are not the same. You should care about as much about your genes as your genes care for you (not at all) Living organisms are genetically wired to care about their genes, e.g., to express them (e.g., to write posts on HN and publish scientific papers) and spread them (to have kids).
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    Wired, but not directly. We don't have an explicit urge to have as many kids as possible, we just like having sex. It kinda leads to the same outcome. Or it did, before we invented contraceptives. Writing posts on HN is not expressing your genes, it is an entirely accidental effect of intelligence, which is another mechanism we have solely to better propagate our genes, but it kinda runaway.
    - account73466 7y ago
      >> Writing posts on HN is not expressing your genes, it is an entirely accidental effect of intelligence Your opinion is a function of your genes (sex, race, physical conditions, etc). Your HN post does not have to be imprinted in your genes but our genes affect our opinion whether we want it or not. It is rarely about which sorting procedure you will peak but when discussing things relevant to genes (again, racial and sexual stuff) they will inject their biases.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago

1) This is a sunk cost fallacy. Think of all the fossil fuel infrastructure, wouldn't it be a waste to stop using it? 2) Your goals and goals of your genes are not the same. You should care about as much about your genes as your genes care for you (not at all)

account73466 7y ago
To truly answer such questions you should have a (set of) metrics to measure what is better and run parallel universes for a significant amount of time to check which version is better according to your metrics. >> Think of all the fossil fuel infrastructure, wouldn't it be a waste to stop using it? Most likely, it would be a waste to stop using it right now. >> Your goals and goals of your genes are not the same. You should care about as much about your genes as your genes care for you (not at all) Living organisms are genetically wired to care about their genes, e.g., to express them (e.g., to write posts on HN and publish scientific papers) and spread them (to have kids).
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  Wired, but not directly. We don't have an explicit urge to have as many kids as possible, we just like having sex. It kinda leads to the same outcome. Or it did, before we invented contraceptives. Writing posts on HN is not expressing your genes, it is an entirely accidental effect of intelligence, which is another mechanism we have solely to better propagate our genes, but it kinda runaway.
  - account73466 7y ago
    >> Writing posts on HN is not expressing your genes, it is an entirely accidental effect of intelligence Your opinion is a function of your genes (sex, race, physical conditions, etc). Your HN post does not have to be imprinted in your genes but our genes affect our opinion whether we want it or not. It is rarely about which sorting procedure you will peak but when discussing things relevant to genes (again, racial and sexual stuff) they will inject their biases.