4 ms·

If I had the Infinity Stones [1], I'll redefine human legal, political, cultural practices and beliefs so that we set right fitness function as it relates to 's

by alok-g 1y ago

If I had the Infinity Stones [1], I'll redefine human legal, political, cultural practices and beliefs so that we set right fitness function as it relates to 'survival of the fittest'. Nature evolved its own criteria for what is fit and unfit. We humans have twisted those around with our beliefs and systems, often for good, but often incorrectly and often inconsistently. 'Fit' cannot be meaningful unless 'unfit' too is, and the unfit are set to some real disadvantage. Trying to attain equality over both fit and unfit is detrimental when taken collectively. Having ethics defined in a way that in practice, those who follow ethics suffer more while those who don't follow have higher chances of success, is not good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Stones

joshlk 1y ago
What your describing is social Darwinism, an argument used by fascist.
- alok-g 1y ago
  Thanks! Will read up about it. Edit: Reading up on Social Darwinism on Wikipedia, Britannica and History.com, I guess not. Social Darwinism seems either not well-defined and/or assumes that the fitness functions that natural evolution worked out need to be taken nearly as it is. I am not saying the latter. I am saying there needs to be more clearly defined fitness functions (call them performance criteria, KPIs, etc.), defined for the modern times, which then need to be more consistently followed. This isn't much different than using gradient descent algorithm where some weights are changed in accordance to their impact on the chosen loss function.
  - stock-parrot 1y ago
    Could you elaborate an example on a real life scenario and how this will look like?
    - alok-g 1y ago
      Right question to ask, and I do not have have good answers currently. But here are some thoughts: First, a clarification over what I am not challenging with the status quo. In nature, some organisms are higher up in the food chain and freely kill others. We do NOT define 'fit' in the way where those who are better at killing other humans are favored for survival. We have already set this right by creating laws that punish homicide. This bends the optimum from favoring more physical strength to favoring people to make good overall social contributions, which can be intellectual as well. The value society should provide to an individual should (generally) be based on the value they provide to the society. This is already majorly the case. However, I challenge inheritances where someone may just be born with a lot more than others without having made those contributions to the society. There are debates present online on this alone, and I cannot claim that the social choice should be exactly this way or that way. In a democracy, people (except children, etc.) are given equal right to vote. I do not find this optimal. People who understand social dynamics, policies and promises of various parties well (which does not include me) should have more influence on which party should get selected. I do not know how this could be implemented. Perhaps a quiz along with the vote? I know these are not good and realistic examples. I'll need to think more. However, I do often feel that people who do good and think for the society struggle more while those who put themselves higher at the cost of the society often end higher up.
jalapenos 1y ago
And what percentage of the world's population do you envisage would remain un-incinerated after you're done?
- alok-g 1y ago
  I have no idea. I do not think this would be even measurable like that. Evolution (biological or human-guided) keeps happening step by step with changes accumulating over the time. So if all works good, it would just accelerate the speed of progress.
easyThrowaway 1y ago
..but aren't our beliefs part of nature too? Who gets to decide which definitions of fit and unfit are "natural" or not?
- alok-g 1y ago
  Semantics aside, I am not proposing choosing natural (say what evolution chose pre-humans) definitions. However, defining the specifics for what is considered as fit and unfit is indeed the key question. The point I am making is that this has not been done thoughtfully, most leaders and lawmakers do not have a good understanding of this (but they are in position of power anyways).

by alok-g 1y ago

joshlk 1y ago

What your describing is social Darwinism, an argument used by fascist.

alok-g 1y ago
Thanks! Will read up about it. Edit: Reading up on Social Darwinism on Wikipedia, Britannica and History.com, I guess not. Social Darwinism seems either not well-defined and/or assumes that the fitness functions that natural evolution worked out need to be taken nearly as it is. I am not saying the latter. I am saying there needs to be more clearly defined fitness functions (call them performance criteria, KPIs, etc.), defined for the modern times, which then need to be more consistently followed. This isn't much different than using gradient descent algorithm where some weights are changed in accordance to their impact on the chosen loss function.
- stock-parrot 1y ago
  Could you elaborate an example on a real life scenario and how this will look like?
  - alok-g 1y ago
    Right question to ask, and I do not have have good answers currently. But here are some thoughts: First, a clarification over what I am not challenging with the status quo. In nature, some organisms are higher up in the food chain and freely kill others. We do NOT define 'fit' in the way where those who are better at killing other humans are favored for survival. We have already set this right by creating laws that punish homicide. This bends the optimum from favoring more physical strength to favoring people to make good overall social contributions, which can be intellectual as well. The value society should provide to an individual should (generally) be based on the value they provide to the society. This is already majorly the case. However, I challenge inheritances where someone may just be born with a lot more than others without having made those contributions to the society. There are debates present online on this alone, and I cannot claim that the social choice should be exactly this way or that way. In a democracy, people (except children, etc.) are given equal right to vote. I do not find this optimal. People who understand social dynamics, policies and promises of various parties well (which does not include me) should have more influence on which party should get selected. I do not know how this could be implemented. Perhaps a quiz along with the vote? I know these are not good and realistic examples. I'll need to think more. However, I do often feel that people who do good and think for the society struggle more while those who put themselves higher at the cost of the society often end higher up.

jalapenos 1y ago

And what percentage of the world's population do you envisage would remain un-incinerated after you're done?

alok-g 1y ago
I have no idea. I do not think this would be even measurable like that. Evolution (biological or human-guided) keeps happening step by step with changes accumulating over the time. So if all works good, it would just accelerate the speed of progress.

easyThrowaway 1y ago

..but aren't our beliefs part of nature too? Who gets to decide which definitions of fit and unfit are "natural" or not?

alok-g 1y ago
Semantics aside, I am not proposing choosing natural (say what evolution chose pre-humans) definitions. However, defining the specifics for what is considered as fit and unfit is indeed the key question. The point I am making is that this has not been done thoughtfully, most leaders and lawmakers do not have a good understanding of this (but they are in position of power anyways).