eli_sennesh comments on 2013 Survey Results - Less Wrong

74 Post author: Yvain 19 January 2014 02:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (558)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 January 2014 04:20:35PM 3 points [-]

Category error: neither jet engines nor nuclear weapons capture available/free mass-energy as living (ie: self-reproducing) bodies. Evolution never got to those because it simply doesn't care about them: nuclear bombs can't have grandchildren.

Comment author: Locaha 20 January 2014 05:07:20PM 1 point [-]

You can use both jet engines and nuclear weapons to increase your relative fitness.

There are no living nuclear reactors, either, despite the vast potential of energy.

Comment author: Nornagest 20 January 2014 10:44:26PM 3 points [-]

There are organisms that use gamma radiation as an energy source. If we lived in an environment richer in naturally occurring radioisotopes, I think I'd expect to see more of this sort of thing -- maybe not up to the point of criticality, but maybe so.

Not much point in speculating, really; living on a planet that's better than four billion years old and of middling metallicity puts something of a damper on the basic biological potential of that pathway.

Comment author: Locaha 21 January 2014 07:14:52AM 1 point [-]

Not much point in speculating, really; living on a planet that's better than four billion years old and of middling metallicity puts something of a damper on the basic biological potential of that pathway.

And yet humanity did it, on a much smaller time scale. This is what I'm saying, we are better than evolution at some stuff.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 January 2014 10:03:09PM 0 points [-]

You can use both jet engines and nuclear weapons to increase your relative fitness.

Which living beings created by evolution have done -- also known as us!

Comment author: Locaha 21 January 2014 07:16:39AM 1 point [-]

This would be stretching the definition of evolution beyond its breaking point.