5 ms·

Without death and scarcity we could never have evolved. That fierce and terrible dragon is mother to us all. Before killing mom we should figure out what she's

Without death and scarcity we could never have evolved. That fierce and terrible dragon is mother to us all. Before killing mom we should figure out what she's good for. Like hugely accelerating biological adaptation. Do you think that we're all grown up now and only require cultural adaptation going forward? As terrible as death is, as much as I too miss Grandma, it is an evil necessary to fend off the higher order of evil, the greater dragon, extinction.

kiba 4y ago
What a weird take. Evolution doesn't care about being a mother. It is just a process, indifferent to us humans. Likewise, 'accelerating' biological adaptation is neither good or bad, it just is. There is no moral character unless we give it human intention.
- hirundo 4y ago
  The story anthropomorphizes death as a dragon (dracomorphizes?). I'm pointing out that it is doing so to an essential mechanism of biological evolution. That gives evolution a moral valence, per the story. In general, it should be clear that to cut a species off from a primary source of biological evolution would not usually be beneficial to that species' survival prospects. Maybe that is no longer true of Homo sapiens, but I doubt it.
  - blkhawk 4y ago
    We are already cut of from general evolution as long as we have a society that relies mostly on factors externally to genetics. Those factors are so much more rapid and impactful than the slow evolution by procreation and death statistical processes that it makes little sense to even consider them.
  - kiba 4y ago
    Destroying death doesn't cut off evolution, since humans are able to reproduce, which is our primary source of variation. Moreover, the story is about aging, not death. Although the ultimate outcome of aging is death.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Genetic evolution is probably already no longer part of humanity's future, regardless of death. We have generic engineering, albeit limited. Direct genetic engineering will be driven by memetic evolution within a generation or two.
    - kiba 4y ago
      As long humanity continued to have children, there will be evolution.
      - ben_w 4y ago
        Just not of the genetic variety, not when we can read and write DNA like a book (or even like decompiled assembly language).
        kiba 4y ago
        Genetic variation occurs through normal human reproductive process.
        ben_w 4y ago
        In a world where it can be read and written at will, natural mutations will be irrelevant even when they occur.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > an essential mechanism It's not essential though, is the point. We can do better than the sloppy process of evolution.
ben_w 4y ago
Unlike the dead, death and scarcity can always be brought back. I'm optimistic that all the supposed benefits of death have other, better, alternatives.
naasking 4y ago
> Without death and scarcity we could never have evolved. Without disease, we would have never evolved an immune system. Therefore we shouldn't try to cure disease. I think the flaw is very clear in this analogy: human ingenuity and science is better than evolution by natural selection in pretty much every way. Now that we've evolved science, we no longer need evolution by natural selection.

kiba 4y ago

What a weird take. Evolution doesn't care about being a mother. It is just a process, indifferent to us humans. Likewise, 'accelerating' biological adaptation is neither good or bad, it just is. There is no moral character unless we give it human intention.

hirundo 4y ago
The story anthropomorphizes death as a dragon (dracomorphizes?). I'm pointing out that it is doing so to an essential mechanism of biological evolution. That gives evolution a moral valence, per the story. In general, it should be clear that to cut a species off from a primary source of biological evolution would not usually be beneficial to that species' survival prospects. Maybe that is no longer true of Homo sapiens, but I doubt it.
- blkhawk 4y ago
  We are already cut of from general evolution as long as we have a society that relies mostly on factors externally to genetics. Those factors are so much more rapid and impactful than the slow evolution by procreation and death statistical processes that it makes little sense to even consider them.
- kiba 4y ago
  Destroying death doesn't cut off evolution, since humans are able to reproduce, which is our primary source of variation. Moreover, the story is about aging, not death. Although the ultimate outcome of aging is death.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Genetic evolution is probably already no longer part of humanity's future, regardless of death. We have generic engineering, albeit limited. Direct genetic engineering will be driven by memetic evolution within a generation or two.
  - kiba 4y ago
    As long humanity continued to have children, there will be evolution.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      Just not of the genetic variety, not when we can read and write DNA like a book (or even like decompiled assembly language).
      - kiba 4y ago
        Genetic variation occurs through normal human reproductive process.
        ben_w 4y ago
        In a world where it can be read and written at will, natural mutations will be irrelevant even when they occur.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > an essential mechanism It's not essential though, is the point. We can do better than the sloppy process of evolution.

ben_w 4y ago

Unlike the dead, death and scarcity can always be brought back. I'm optimistic that all the supposed benefits of death have other, better, alternatives.

naasking 4y ago

> Without death and scarcity we could never have evolved. Without disease, we would have never evolved an immune system. Therefore we shouldn't try to cure disease. I think the flaw is very clear in this analogy: human ingenuity and science is better than evolution by natural selection in pretty much every way. Now that we've evolved science, we no longer need evolution by natural selection.