3 ms·

I think we should build complexity using sort of adversarial system, where things compete like in Nature. The great lakes is a complex eco system. I remember w

I think we should build complexity using sort of adversarial system, where things compete like in Nature. The great lakes is a complex eco system. I remember when Zebra mussels first appeared in the Great Lakes. Tens of articles appeared, how this was an epic natural disaster, that would kill the Great Lakes Eco system, because Zebra mussels would eat all the food. Now decades later, it turns out that Zebra mussels are great at filter feeding, and have thrived. But this also cleared up the water greatly. To the point that the lakes can look almost tropical, ocean clear, on sunny summer days. Which is probably great for all kinds of plants that now thrive on the extra sunshine reaching deeper down. It seems like the system just rearranged itself, and new opportunities appeared for some other plants to thrive.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
In nature, everything is fine, including nothing at all, because nature doesn't care either way - it just is. If Zebra mussels turned the Great Lakes sterile, it would be fine by nature. When we care about a system, we care about specifics - we want it to look in some way, do some thing or provide us with some things. E.g. we want clean-looking, odorless lakes safe for recreation and full of fish to eat. That's a specific outcome that may or may not be what the natural selection will provide; to ensure we get what we want, we need to supply a strong selection pressure of our design. Adversarial processes are effective given sufficient time, but about the least efficient way to build a system after just waiting for it to appear at random. Humanity's dominance over other life on Earth is in big way based on the ability to predict and invent things "up front", without any competitive selection. I feel we should refine that skill and find more opportunities to use it, because it's much less wasteful.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

In nature, everything is fine, including nothing at all, because nature doesn't care either way - it just is. If Zebra mussels turned the Great Lakes sterile, it would be fine by nature. When we care about a system, we care about specifics - we want it to look in some way, do some thing or provide us with some things. E.g. we want clean-looking, odorless lakes safe for recreation and full of fish to eat. That's a specific outcome that may or may not be what the natural selection will provide; to ensure we get what we want, we need to supply a strong selection pressure of our design. Adversarial processes are effective given sufficient time, but about the least efficient way to build a system after just waiting for it to appear at random. Humanity's dominance over other life on Earth is in big way based on the ability to predict and invent things "up front", without any competitive selection. I feel we should refine that skill and find more opportunities to use it, because it's much less wasteful.