= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Romashka comments on No Evolutions for Corporations or Nanodevices - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (32)
No, it is about reconstruction. Bad enough that population is a general term. If there is a sequence of hereditable and recombinant features in corporations, then ok, call them population. If there is a way of novel - like, somethingtththat would change the whole scene and ensure an emergence of a previously unimaginable body plan, then I'll grant you evolution. Until then - don't mix nature and human design.
If I do genetic engineering to change around a few genes I'm engaging in human design but I still have evolution.
The NIH definition of biological evolution is:
No, you will have it after the changes are shown to be in the next few generations. And corporations aren't biological objects. If you apply the term to them, re-define it.