6 ms·

We have to evolve synthetically To avoid our doom

3 points by docdot 5y ago

foxhop 5y ago
In order to avoid our doom, we must grow distributed food forests inside towns and cities. Here's how to start now: https://youtu.be/AJCv7wIolwM https://youtu.be/AJCv7wIolwM
- rmah 5y ago
  Why would we want to grow our food on 2% of our most expensive land? Land that is already used for lots of other things?
  - foxhop 5y ago
    Because you don't need energy, human or otherwise to ship food or material to where the people are. Because we stack functions through time and space. Because it solves the distribution problem. Because it's already working and all we need to do is expand. Because the sun's shines everywhere. Because polyculture allows for more variety and a single crop failure doesn't need to be insured. Because we could close loops naturally and avoid polluting, we would feed animals like chickens food scraps and compost locally in the gardens and forests. Because we can do better.
    - rmah 5y ago
      Transportation today is highly efficient and the energy required per ton-mile of food is tiny. But go ahead and grow your crops in the city if that's what you want. No one is stopping you.
    - nradov 5y ago
      That's total nonsense. Shipping food takes minimal energy. The distribution problem is already solved.
  - FiggyPudding 5y ago
    Think of the real estate value living near the food forest... Like central park in NYC, why don't we cut that in half and put up more high rises on our precious expensive land.
    - foxhop 5y ago
      I cannot tell if you are trolling but central park is an oasis in a hellscape that is NYC.
smitty1e 5y ago
> Some researchers believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. As a technical matter, I don't think we know enough to go writing DNA libraries to start freebasing the code. Then there are the barely-explored ethical vistas. Patience. Think it through for a decade or three.
- Metacelsus 5y ago
  > I don't think we know enough to go writing DNA libraries to start freebasing the code. True, but there's plenty of low-hanging fruit in areas like embryo selection, enough to increase population-level intelligence by several standard deviations.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Ah, yes, eugenics. Considering that intelligence seems to be correlated with autism spectral disorders, and individuals with severe autism are in need of individual care for their entire lives, are you sure that's it's smart to optimize for raw intelligence?
    - varelse 5y ago
      I think you have nothing to fear. I'm all in favor of breeding genetic disorders out of the species and there's a whole bunch we can eliminate before we get into murky ethical territory. Religion can bite me on this one. But also, take a look around you. The species isn't going to optimize for intelligence. It's going to optimize for looks. That's just how we're wired. And that will destroy a lot of plastic surgeon jobs.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        Yeah, let's do what we can to reduce genetic diversity, weeding out the bits of code that we don't understand. Never mind the rapidly changing climate. Sounds like a great plan. edit: the comment about plastic surgery is really weird. Do you think that 90% of humanity is going to stop breeding just because they aren't as attractive as the other 10%? And who's paying for plastic surgery? From my understanding, it's that vain 10%...
smoldesu 5y ago
There's a whole lot of conjecture here, and it's hard to take seriously with the capitalization errors. What the author seems to be getting at is transhumanism on a surface level. I think most of this article tracks: Sure, we could find a way to manipulate our own biological processes, but what does that look like in practice? Would it exacerbate or rectify our current social systems? Would there be significant ideological opposition to it? What would the long-term effects of that be psychologically? How will people work together when they're no longer the same people? There are so many interesting questions to explore here, that I feel like a simple "yes or no" response to this is entirely ignoring the interesting issues that could arise from that. Or maybe I've been reading too many Frank Herbert novels...
COGlory 5y ago
This is a pretty poor article. First of all, the title has nothing really at all to do with the content. Second, its extremely short, and third, superficial with no real substance and lots of keyword stuffing and presuppositions. "If we develop AGI this is how it will be followed by this and then that"
- bobthechef 5y ago
  Philosophical sophistication is rare, especially among those who get off on fantasy. Too many people in tech make utter fools of themselves in this regard without realizing it.
MoZeu 5y ago
Didn't Steven Spielberg make a movie about this?

3 points by docdot 5y ago

In order to avoid our doom, we must grow distributed food forests inside towns and cities. Here's how to start now: https://youtu.be/AJCv7wIolwM https://youtu.be/AJCv7wIolwM

rmah 5y ago
Why would we want to grow our food on 2% of our most expensive land? Land that is already used for lots of other things?
- foxhop 5y ago
  Because you don't need energy, human or otherwise to ship food or material to where the people are. Because we stack functions through time and space. Because it solves the distribution problem. Because it's already working and all we need to do is expand. Because the sun's shines everywhere. Because polyculture allows for more variety and a single crop failure doesn't need to be insured. Because we could close loops naturally and avoid polluting, we would feed animals like chickens food scraps and compost locally in the gardens and forests. Because we can do better.
  - rmah 5y ago
    Transportation today is highly efficient and the energy required per ton-mile of food is tiny. But go ahead and grow your crops in the city if that's what you want. No one is stopping you.
  - nradov 5y ago
    That's total nonsense. Shipping food takes minimal energy. The distribution problem is already solved.
- FiggyPudding 5y ago
  Think of the real estate value living near the food forest... Like central park in NYC, why don't we cut that in half and put up more high rises on our precious expensive land.
  - foxhop 5y ago
    I cannot tell if you are trolling but central park is an oasis in a hellscape that is NYC.

smitty1e 5y ago

> Some researchers believe that humans will evolve or directly modify their biology so as to achieve radically greater intelligence. As a technical matter, I don't think we know enough to go writing DNA libraries to start freebasing the code. Then there are the barely-explored ethical vistas. Patience. Think it through for a decade or three.

Metacelsus 5y ago
> I don't think we know enough to go writing DNA libraries to start freebasing the code. True, but there's plenty of low-hanging fruit in areas like embryo selection, enough to increase population-level intelligence by several standard deviations.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Ah, yes, eugenics. Considering that intelligence seems to be correlated with autism spectral disorders, and individuals with severe autism are in need of individual care for their entire lives, are you sure that's it's smart to optimize for raw intelligence?
  - varelse 5y ago
    I think you have nothing to fear. I'm all in favor of breeding genetic disorders out of the species and there's a whole bunch we can eliminate before we get into murky ethical territory. Religion can bite me on this one. But also, take a look around you. The species isn't going to optimize for intelligence. It's going to optimize for looks. That's just how we're wired. And that will destroy a lot of plastic surgeon jobs.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Yeah, let's do what we can to reduce genetic diversity, weeding out the bits of code that we don't understand. Never mind the rapidly changing climate. Sounds like a great plan. edit: the comment about plastic surgery is really weird. Do you think that 90% of humanity is going to stop breeding just because they aren't as attractive as the other 10%? And who's paying for plastic surgery? From my understanding, it's that vain 10%...

smoldesu 5y ago

There's a whole lot of conjecture here, and it's hard to take seriously with the capitalization errors. What the author seems to be getting at is transhumanism on a surface level. I think most of this article tracks: Sure, we could find a way to manipulate our own biological processes, but what does that look like in practice? Would it exacerbate or rectify our current social systems? Would there be significant ideological opposition to it? What would the long-term effects of that be psychologically? How will people work together when they're no longer the same people? There are so many interesting questions to explore here, that I feel like a simple "yes or no" response to this is entirely ignoring the interesting issues that could arise from that. Or maybe I've been reading too many Frank Herbert novels...

COGlory 5y ago

This is a pretty poor article. First of all, the title has nothing really at all to do with the content. Second, its extremely short, and third, superficial with no real substance and lots of keyword stuffing and presuppositions. "If we develop AGI this is how it will be followed by this and then that"

bobthechef 5y ago
Philosophical sophistication is rare, especially among those who get off on fantasy. Too many people in tech make utter fools of themselves in this regard without realizing it.

MoZeu 5y ago

Didn't Steven Spielberg make a movie about this?