3 ms·

I think Woz's point is that no matter how much the carrying capacity of the Earth (or even the entire solar system, or galaxy) is increased, it will always be f

I think Woz's point is that no matter how much the carrying capacity of the Earth (or even the entire solar system, or galaxy) is increased, it will always be finite. It's possible that we might be lucky enough to live through a great era of spaceward expansion during which even our best efforts at population growth are slower than the than the even faster growth of population capacity, and that would be amazing. That's the type of historical era in which a slogan of "be fruitful and multiply" is really good advice. But unless the universe has infinite future potential -- specifically, a way to access a limitless source of negentropy (either through time travel or magitech or something equally reality-warping) -- then eventually the population capacity would stop growing.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
Extended to the limit, it's a fair point, but this type of thinking is arguably far from common-sense (since it's uncommon for people to engage in universe-scale hypotheticals), and arguably a problem for the future - i.e. for when we start outgrowing the galaxy or something.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  It's not a problem for the future, it's where we are at now until sufficiently advanced technology (or sufficiently peaceful international relations) intervenes.
  - fastball 3y ago
    Ok but if you're goal is actually some form of altruism, wouldn't keeping a clearly innovative person around forever be more useful than rolling your dice with whoever is taking his spot? Statistically, they are going to be not as useful (depending on your definition of useful of course).
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Sure, we Gorillas know that stronger arms and bites are going to be important for future generations. "It takes all kinds to make a world" isn't just a saying about polite tolerance. It isn't altruistic to value one person's life more than another for their demonstrated ability to contribute what you think is best. That is literally egocentric selfishness, which is pretty much the opposite of altruism. I think the word you want is "utilitarian". A person's ability to contribute is also context dependent. Woz was an innovator, but he also got lucky in multiple respects to have contributed what he did. Picking "Golden Children" tends to have negative sociological and innovative effects.
      - fastball 3y ago
        With regards to the gorilla analogy, I think for all intents and purposes we've already knee-capped the evolutionary process of humanity with modern medicine (not going backwards ala Idiocracy, but not going forwards either). We might need to be a little bit "picky" (read: deliberate) in the future if we want to keep progressing. I believe this is the ethos of trans-humanists. I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. All that said, I actually do disagree with the fundamental premise that resources are finite in a meaningful way and that one person's immortality is stealing from someone else in a zero-sum game. Intelligent life is not zero-sum, and it is just as likely that Immortal Woz would develop a new farming technology that allows X extra people to exist than that he would actually require enough resources to be a net negative.
        anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        > I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. My "all kinds" cite wasn't meant to be about diversity per se, but about new people. Additionally, youth brings with it a native understanding that age (barring possible global amnesia) can't. > I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm not trying to pull the Nazi card here, it's just the first parallel I can think of: Hitler wasn't blonde haired nor particularly tall, yet his desire for a race of tall, blonde, blue-eyed Aryans was still egocentric. > Intelligent life is not zero-sum No, for many other sentient terrestrial species, and even non-sentient ones, human life is negative sum. Regardless, human society would have to fragment quite a bit for older folks in this hypothetical world of immortality to not dominate opportunities for the younger folks. I hope this happens, but am skeptical enough I assume it's more likely that domineering paternalism is more likely to grow.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

Extended to the limit, it's a fair point, but this type of thinking is arguably far from common-sense (since it's uncommon for people to engage in universe-scale hypotheticals), and arguably a problem for the future - i.e. for when we start outgrowing the galaxy or something.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
It's not a problem for the future, it's where we are at now until sufficiently advanced technology (or sufficiently peaceful international relations) intervenes.
- fastball 3y ago
  Ok but if you're goal is actually some form of altruism, wouldn't keeping a clearly innovative person around forever be more useful than rolling your dice with whoever is taking his spot? Statistically, they are going to be not as useful (depending on your definition of useful of course).
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Sure, we Gorillas know that stronger arms and bites are going to be important for future generations. "It takes all kinds to make a world" isn't just a saying about polite tolerance. It isn't altruistic to value one person's life more than another for their demonstrated ability to contribute what you think is best. That is literally egocentric selfishness, which is pretty much the opposite of altruism. I think the word you want is "utilitarian". A person's ability to contribute is also context dependent. Woz was an innovator, but he also got lucky in multiple respects to have contributed what he did. Picking "Golden Children" tends to have negative sociological and innovative effects.
    - fastball 3y ago
      With regards to the gorilla analogy, I think for all intents and purposes we've already knee-capped the evolutionary process of humanity with modern medicine (not going backwards ala Idiocracy, but not going forwards either). We might need to be a little bit "picky" (read: deliberate) in the future if we want to keep progressing. I believe this is the ethos of trans-humanists. I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. All that said, I actually do disagree with the fundamental premise that resources are finite in a meaningful way and that one person's immortality is stealing from someone else in a zero-sum game. Intelligent life is not zero-sum, and it is just as likely that Immortal Woz would develop a new farming technology that allows X extra people to exist than that he would actually require enough resources to be a net negative.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        > I'm also unsure why you think whichever human is "replacing" Woz in this hypothetical is going to up the level of diversity. My "all kinds" cite wasn't meant to be about diversity per se, but about new people. Additionally, youth brings with it a native understanding that age (barring possible global amnesia) can't. > I'm not Steve Wozniak so if I did want him to be immortal I'm pretty sure that would not be selfishness. I'm not trying to pull the Nazi card here, it's just the first parallel I can think of: Hitler wasn't blonde haired nor particularly tall, yet his desire for a race of tall, blonde, blue-eyed Aryans was still egocentric. > Intelligent life is not zero-sum No, for many other sentient terrestrial species, and even non-sentient ones, human life is negative sum. Regardless, human society would have to fragment quite a bit for older folks in this hypothetical world of immortality to not dominate opportunities for the younger folks. I hope this happens, but am skeptical enough I assume it's more likely that domineering paternalism is more likely to grow.