5 ms·

We need to think carefully before invoking natural selection too strongly. The fact that it has much less emphasis on activities taken on after we stop procreat

We need to think carefully before invoking natural selection too strongly. The fact that it has much less emphasis on activities taken on after we stop procreation is a huge blindspot for one thing. Someone who invents the cure for cancer but has no children is considered a failure by natural selection. Someone who never contributes anything to society but has 15 kids is conversely considered a huge success.

ganzuul 5y ago
Well in terms of evolution there needs to be a set of instructions that gets passed on. If those instructions can mutate, we have evolution. Perhaps it isn't genetic code that gets passed on, but e.g. cultural inventions. That said, these biological circuits that we are considering get replicated in whatever environment that they exist in. Love may lead to other things than biological reproduction. Our lore regarding the human, personal experience of love and what to do with it also mutates and evolves. A poem then, may take the place of the greatest invention.
brongondwana 5y ago
If they invent a cure and it's forgotten by future generations, then it is a failure. If their cure is remembered and passed on, then their memetic output is not lost, so they contributed - just not genetically. Sure genetic material can survive where culture and memory is lost, and evolves more slowly, but cultural contributions do shape the future a lot as well.
kortex 5y ago
Not at the macro level. Natural selection isn't just about fitness of an individual. For example, altruism can be selected for, despite resulting in the sacrifice of the individual. It increases the fitness of their kin by globally reducing risk. If you extend "kinship" to "all of humanity", then having a pool on non-reproducing scientists still increases the species' fitness. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iLX_r_WPrIw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iLX_r_WPrIw

ganzuul 5y ago

Well in terms of evolution there needs to be a set of instructions that gets passed on. If those instructions can mutate, we have evolution. Perhaps it isn't genetic code that gets passed on, but e.g. cultural inventions. That said, these biological circuits that we are considering get replicated in whatever environment that they exist in. Love may lead to other things than biological reproduction. Our lore regarding the human, personal experience of love and what to do with it also mutates and evolves. A poem then, may take the place of the greatest invention.

brongondwana 5y ago

If they invent a cure and it's forgotten by future generations, then it is a failure. If their cure is remembered and passed on, then their memetic output is not lost, so they contributed - just not genetically. Sure genetic material can survive where culture and memory is lost, and evolves more slowly, but cultural contributions do shape the future a lot as well.

kortex 5y ago

Not at the macro level. Natural selection isn't just about fitness of an individual. For example, altruism can be selected for, despite resulting in the sacrifice of the individual. It increases the fitness of their kin by globally reducing risk. If you extend "kinship" to "all of humanity", then having a pool on non-reproducing scientists still increases the species' fitness. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iLX_r_WPrIw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iLX_r_WPrIw