3 ms·

> I believe that if there is one thing humanity needs to do to get through the next few centuries, is to reject envy and stop taking finite games seriously. Th

by ekr 12y ago

> I believe that if there is one thing humanity needs to do to get through the next few centuries, is to reject envy and stop taking finite games seriously. That cannot happen as long as you want humanity to exist. Reproduction is the driving force, shaping everything from our behavior, including the search for status, which is an important mechanism in mating. If people didn't signal [http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Signaling http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Signaling], evolution would be a lot slower (or maybe could exist at all?). Now, status doesn't necessarily need to be related to wealth, however for the past centuries, that was a reliable indicator. This is really basic evolutionary psychology, and I encourage the author the check it out.

PavlovsCat 12y ago
A lot of things "slow down evolution". Glasses and contact lenses, or not throwing babies with birth defects from the nearest cliff. So that in itself hardly constitutes an argument against anything, slowing down evolution is perfectly fine. It's not like fast or slow or no evolution make any difference when it comes to the heat death of the universe. Evolution does make "progress", but not really towards anything in particular; it isn't going anywhere. The universe, for all we know anyway, is a tightly sealed container we will not get out of and die in no matter what we evolve into -- so we might as well spend the time intellectually honest and compassionate. > Now, status doesn't necessarily need to be related to wealth, however for the past centuries, that was a reliable indicator. On what planet? Make a list of the greatest minds of the last 100 years, and find out how much they cared about, or even despised, wealth. I know it's subjective to a degree what constitutes a "great mind" - but that still beats the circular logic of defining success as material wealth, and then saying material wealth is a good indicator for success.
EliRivers 12y ago
"This is really basic evolutionary psychology, and I encourage the author the check it out." Maybe at the same time he could check out dowsing, homeopathy, and all the other pseudoscience.

by ekr 12y ago

PavlovsCat 12y ago

A lot of things "slow down evolution". Glasses and contact lenses, or not throwing babies with birth defects from the nearest cliff. So that in itself hardly constitutes an argument against anything, slowing down evolution is perfectly fine. It's not like fast or slow or no evolution make any difference when it comes to the heat death of the universe. Evolution does make "progress", but not really towards anything in particular; it isn't going anywhere. The universe, for all we know anyway, is a tightly sealed container we will not get out of and die in no matter what we evolve into -- so we might as well spend the time intellectually honest and compassionate. > Now, status doesn't necessarily need to be related to wealth, however for the past centuries, that was a reliable indicator. On what planet? Make a list of the greatest minds of the last 100 years, and find out how much they cared about, or even despised, wealth. I know it's subjective to a degree what constitutes a "great mind" - but that still beats the circular logic of defining success as material wealth, and then saying material wealth is a good indicator for success.

EliRivers 12y ago

"This is really basic evolutionary psychology, and I encourage the author the check it out." Maybe at the same time he could check out dowsing, homeopathy, and all the other pseudoscience.