3 ms·

Your "standard evolutionary math" still assumes relative birth rate differences as they are right now will stay the same into the future. They aren't stable rig

Your "standard evolutionary math" still assumes relative birth rate differences as they are right now will stay the same into the future. They aren't stable right now and haven't ever been. A foolish assumption, but useful for certain world views. And as those relative differences change and even invert in some cases, there really is no case to make for the idea that this supposed evolutionary effect could reverse what we are actually seeing in the real data.

jerf 6y ago
'Your "standard evolutionary math" still assumes relative birth rate differences as they are right now will stay the same into the future.' I have no idea what you are talking about. No such stability is required. No such stability exists in nature, yet evolution persists, right? The completely standard predator-prey recursive relationship intrinsically involves highly variable (successful) reproductive rates in a constantly oscillating relationship, but I don't hear anyone suggest that disproves evolution. To be honest, if either of us are assuming constant situations that never change forever into the future, it really seems to be you. My entire point is based on variances. I'm arguing against the proposition that no intelligent species will ever spread across the universe because early 21st century humanity in the first world seems to not particularly be interested in it today. Again, the discussion here is integrated across all possible intelligent species, not "humanity". It only takes one species to uncontrollably reproduce to spread across the cosmos. Science fiction is replete with possible such species. Does the HN gestalt not frequently remind people that aliens can be actually, you know, alien? Not just humans with funny foreheads? Even Elon Musk might quibble with the idea that nobody in the first world in the 21st century wants to spread across the stars. If Mars were to build a self-sustaining habitat (which I define as a habitat able to build another equally-self-sustaining habitat), it doesn't matter whether there's 12 billion people on Earth uninterested in spreading out into the solar system, if Mars starts building and growing and spreading further. It only takes a few. It would then not further matter if they build a self-sustaining asteroid-based civilization if all the people on Mars decide they've got it made, and nobody ever again leaves Mars. I say the argument that 0.0000000000000000000000% of a species ever wants to spread out into the stars once they have the capacity, just because we happen to live in a couple of decades where most people (not even all, just most) wouldn't be interested in it is not a sensible one. It's parochial even on human terms; it's beyond parochial across the set of all possible intelligent beings.
- bayesian_horse 6y ago
  tl;dr; you don't make sense. Of course a difference in relative reproductive rates needs to be stable for the underlying causes to dominate and in turn affect reproductive rates. That's how evolution works. However, that's not how Human birth rates in different countries and communities work, today.
adwn 6y ago
> But for sure it's a racist trope [...] but useful for certain world views Please stop. HN is not the place for baseless accusations of racism. Please assume good faith in discussions.
- bayesian_horse 6y ago
  Well, you are repeating racist tropes, that why I said that. It is not important to me that you know or believe it yourself. That's up to you.

jerf 6y ago

'Your "standard evolutionary math" still assumes relative birth rate differences as they are right now will stay the same into the future.' I have no idea what you are talking about. No such stability is required. No such stability exists in nature, yet evolution persists, right? The completely standard predator-prey recursive relationship intrinsically involves highly variable (successful) reproductive rates in a constantly oscillating relationship, but I don't hear anyone suggest that disproves evolution. To be honest, if either of us are assuming constant situations that never change forever into the future, it really seems to be you. My entire point is based on variances. I'm arguing against the proposition that no intelligent species will ever spread across the universe because early 21st century humanity in the first world seems to not particularly be interested in it today. Again, the discussion here is integrated across all possible intelligent species, not "humanity". It only takes one species to uncontrollably reproduce to spread across the cosmos. Science fiction is replete with possible such species. Does the HN gestalt not frequently remind people that aliens can be actually, you know, alien? Not just humans with funny foreheads? Even Elon Musk might quibble with the idea that nobody in the first world in the 21st century wants to spread across the stars. If Mars were to build a self-sustaining habitat (which I define as a habitat able to build another equally-self-sustaining habitat), it doesn't matter whether there's 12 billion people on Earth uninterested in spreading out into the solar system, if Mars starts building and growing and spreading further. It only takes a few. It would then not further matter if they build a self-sustaining asteroid-based civilization if all the people on Mars decide they've got it made, and nobody ever again leaves Mars. I say the argument that 0.0000000000000000000000% of a species ever wants to spread out into the stars once they have the capacity, just because we happen to live in a couple of decades where most people (not even all, just most) wouldn't be interested in it is not a sensible one. It's parochial even on human terms; it's beyond parochial across the set of all possible intelligent beings.

bayesian_horse 6y ago
tl;dr; you don't make sense. Of course a difference in relative reproductive rates needs to be stable for the underlying causes to dominate and in turn affect reproductive rates. That's how evolution works. However, that's not how Human birth rates in different countries and communities work, today.

adwn 6y ago

> But for sure it's a racist trope [...] but useful for certain world views Please stop. HN is not the place for baseless accusations of racism. Please assume good faith in discussions.

bayesian_horse 6y ago
Well, you are repeating racist tropes, that why I said that. It is not important to me that you know or believe it yourself. That's up to you.