You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

bramflakes comments on Open Thread, April 27-May 4, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

0 Post author: NancyLebovitz 27 April 2014 08:34PM

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

Comments (200)

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

Comment author: Izeinwinter 28 April 2014 05:54:18AM *  -2 points [-]

These discussions all have the same problem. They misapprehend how slow evolution is. - Long before any such selection can take place, the human genome is going to get rewritten end to end by deliberate technological intervention. Or heck, people will just stop dying - universal survival means no selection.

This means that the only thing that matters for the persistence of any human trait is how much they are valued. Uhm. Including how much they are valued by already-modified humans. A few rounds of iteration on that theme and I can guarantee at least one thing about future humanity: They will be one hundred percent satisfied with their physical incarnation. (because otherwise, it'd get changed.)

Think it through. How long do you think it will take before we master genetic engineering and decide to use it? 50 years? 500? 5000? Because at datum 5000, evolution will have done bugger-all to the genome. I mean, lactose tolerance might be a bit more common... but overall? Tech is fast. Social and legal change is slower, but compared to evolution? Blindingly fast. And this is some weak-sauce selective pressures. Most people do have kids. Failing at contraception does not shift the lifetime number of children reliably upwards, it just fucks you over economically. And kids are expensive.

Comment author: bramflakes 28 April 2014 08:29:13AM 2 points [-]

Small changes to genotype don't imply small changes to phenotype.