3 ms·

> It's a one-way, time-traveling message in a bottle So too is DNA in children. You don’t get to choose the entirety of the message but you do get to choose th

> It's a one-way, time-traveling message in a bottle So too is DNA in children. You don’t get to choose the entirety of the message but you do get to choose the half of the lottery that they must receive. And that message is likely to far outlive any message in any dead tree or electronic book.

serf 2y ago
where there is increased opportunity there is usually increased risk; it's hardly a relative comparison. also no one really chooses their offspring's 'half of the lottery', it's an accident of nature -- we only get to choose whether or not we try to propagate our own skew into the lottery roll. and to be very real here for a second, 99% of sexual interaction has nothing to do with genetic time-traveling bottle-messages, and just as few people really give a thought about the genetic combinations resulting from their actions. they just like to orgasm -- it's just not as poetic a concept to talk about.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- frutiger 2y ago
  > also no one really chooses their offspring's 'half of the lottery', it's an accident of nature -- we only get to choose whether or not we try to propagate our own skew into the lottery roll In modern societies, most people choose their mating partner. That’s the lottery half that I am referring to. Of course no one chooses specifically which half of each mate goes into the child. That would be absurd. > and to be very real here for a second, 99% of sexual interaction has nothing to do with genetic time-traveling bottle-messages, and just as few people really give a thought about the genetic combinations resulting from their actions. For the individual sure “it’s just deliberate sex” but for the genome, transmission of the message into the distant future is all there is. Just look around you, you will likely see and hear more evidence of those billion year long message transmissions than anything else.
archon1410 2y ago
> And that message is likely to far outlive any message in any dead tree or electronic book. Berkeley News: Bottlenecks that reduced genetic diversity were common throughout human history (https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/06/23/bottlenecks-that-reduced-genetic-diversity-were-common-throughout-human-history/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/06/23/bottlenecks-that-reduce...) Perhaps the assertion is true in the sense that an average, mediocre person will have a better chance of having his genetic line survive than writing something that immoratalises him in history, like Newton or Pascal. But But if one has the ability, the latter might be a safer option...
stocknoob 2y ago
After 10 generations your message is diluted to 0.1%. We still read Shakespeare and listen to Mozart.
- frutiger 2y ago
  How many thousands of Shakespeare’s contemporaneous authors are lost to time? And Seneca’s?
  - stocknoob 2y ago
    Not sure, but 100% of their contemporaries were diluted. At 100 generations (2500 years) any message has been diluted where random mutations are more influence than your genes.

serf 2y ago

where there is increased opportunity there is usually increased risk; it's hardly a relative comparison. also no one really chooses their offspring's 'half of the lottery', it's an accident of nature -- we only get to choose whether or not we try to propagate our own skew into the lottery roll. and to be very real here for a second, 99% of sexual interaction has nothing to do with genetic time-traveling bottle-messages, and just as few people really give a thought about the genetic combinations resulting from their actions. they just like to orgasm -- it's just not as poetic a concept to talk about.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
frutiger 2y ago
> also no one really chooses their offspring's 'half of the lottery', it's an accident of nature -- we only get to choose whether or not we try to propagate our own skew into the lottery roll In modern societies, most people choose their mating partner. That’s the lottery half that I am referring to. Of course no one chooses specifically which half of each mate goes into the child. That would be absurd. > and to be very real here for a second, 99% of sexual interaction has nothing to do with genetic time-traveling bottle-messages, and just as few people really give a thought about the genetic combinations resulting from their actions. For the individual sure “it’s just deliberate sex” but for the genome, transmission of the message into the distant future is all there is. Just look around you, you will likely see and hear more evidence of those billion year long message transmissions than anything else.

archon1410 2y ago

> And that message is likely to far outlive any message in any dead tree or electronic book. Berkeley News: Bottlenecks that reduced genetic diversity were common throughout human history (https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/06/23/bottlenecks-that-reduced-genetic-diversity-were-common-throughout-human-history/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/06/23/bottlenecks-that-reduce...) Perhaps the assertion is true in the sense that an average, mediocre person will have a better chance of having his genetic line survive than writing something that immoratalises him in history, like Newton or Pascal. But But if one has the ability, the latter might be a safer option...

stocknoob 2y ago

After 10 generations your message is diluted to 0.1%. We still read Shakespeare and listen to Mozart.

frutiger 2y ago
How many thousands of Shakespeare’s contemporaneous authors are lost to time? And Seneca’s?
- stocknoob 2y ago
  Not sure, but 100% of their contemporaries were diluted. At 100 generations (2500 years) any message has been diluted where random mutations are more influence than your genes.