= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Gavin comments on If there IS alien super-inteligence in our own galaxy, then what it could be like? - 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 (58)
Similar to some of the other ideas, but here are my framings:
Virtually all of the space in the universe have been taken over by superintelligences. We find ourselves observing the universe from one of these rare areas because it would be impossible for us to exist in one of the colonized areas. Thus, it shouldn't be too surprising that our little area of non-colonization is just now popping out a new superintelligence. The most likely outcome for an intelligent species is to watch the area around them become colonized while they cannot develop fast enough to catch up.
A dyson-sphere level intelligence knows basically everything. There is a limit to knowledge and power that can be approached. Once a species has achieved a certain level of power it simply doesn't need to continue expanding in order to guarantee its safety and the fulfillment of its values. Continued expansion has diminishing returns and it has other values or goals that counterbalance any tiny desire to continue expanding.
Evolution should favor species that have expansion as a terminal value.
Why terminal?
Care to show the path for that? Evolution favors individual outcomes, and species are a categorization we apply after the fact.
Survival of genotype is more likely for chains of individuals that value some diversity of environment and don't get all killed by a single local catastrophe, but it's not clear at all that this extends beyond subplanetary habitat diversity.
The Amish.
If you are not subject to the Malthusian trap, evolution favors subgroups that want to have lots of offspring. Given variation in a population not subject to the Malthusian trap concerning how many children each person wants to have, and given that one's preferences concerning children are in part genetically determined, the number of children the average member of such a species wants to have should steadily increase.
Aren't the Amish (and other fast-spawning tribes) a perfect example of how this doesn't lead to universal domination? They're all groups that either embrace primitivity or are stuck in it, and to a large extent couldn't maintain their high reproductive rate without parasitism on surrounding cultures.
Depends on how you define domination. Over the long run if trends continue the Amish will dominate through demography. I don't think the Amish are parasites since they don't take resources from the rest of us.
They are parasitic on our infrastructure, healthcare system, and military. Amish reap the benefits of modern day road construction methods to transport their trade goods, but could not themselves construct modern day roads. Depending on the branch of Amish, a significant number of their babies are born in modern-day hospitals, something they could not build themselves and which contributes to their successful birth rate.
Everything you wrote is also true of my family, but because of specialization and trade we are not parasites.
Last time I checked you weren't arguing that your family was going to dominate the world through breeding.
But it is unethical to allow all the suffering that occurs on our planet.
That depends on your ethical system, doesn't it?
Compared to what alternative?