> You shouldn't expect to be able to compress a human morality down to a simple utility function, any more than you should expect to compress a large computer file down to 10 bits.

I think it is a helpful exercise, in trying to live "The Examined Life", to attempt to compress a personal morality down to the fewest number of explicitly stated values.

Then, pay special attention to exactly where the "compressed morality" is deficient in describing the actual personal morality.

I find, often but not always, that it is my personal morality that would benefit from modification, to make it more like the "compressed morality".

> From what I've read, virtually nobody in China is a communist now, just as people had stopped believing in the last days of the Soviet Union. In North Korea or among the rebels of Nepal there are still true-believers, but I don't think there are as many as there are Christians.

I find it useful to distinguish between the Chinese and the Swedish. I call the Chinese form of government "communism", and I call the Swedish form of government "socialism". If they are all sub-tribes of "Canadians" to you, then you don't prize distinction as much I do.

There are certainly more "self-reported communists" than there are "humans whose daily actions are informed by the example of Jesus Christ".

...All I need are are a few dozen "self-repored communists" to prove that...

Minor point. It is peculiar to talk about the "death of communism" when there are about as many communists in the world as there are Christians.

"Death of the _Purported_ Worldwide Worker's Communist Revolution" is closer to the truth (and a mouthful).

How about "Death of Worldwide Revolutionary Communism"?

> That's what evolution is defined as -- changes in gene frequency.

And how does this relate to the jibber-jabber that is Darwin's _On_the_Origin_of_Species_? I can't find the word "gene" in the index.

I wouldn't use the word "evolve" to describe the death of a species in a handful of generations. I wouldn't use the word "evolve" to describe any process that begins and then terminates only over a handful of generations.

Instead, in this particular case, I would describe it as a failure mode of the species' genetic mechanisms.

I think "evolving to extinction" is an unhelpful and misleading way to describe this particular possible failure mode of a species' genetic mechanisms. (I don't doubt the phenomena couldn't or doesn't exist.)

> But the male chromosome isn't competing against the female chromosome. The mutant male chromosome is competing against the unmutant male chromosome. The mutant male chromosome is fitter, rises to fixation at its allele location, and in one more generation the species as a whole goes extinct.

I would still be loath to call it "evolved to death". Where is the "evolution"? You are describing an event that would wipe out a species in an instant (considering it on the time scales that evolution acts on). Species die out instantaneously (on an evolutionary time scales) for many reasons.

How else can I respond to an event that takes "one more generation" to kill the whole species? Nothing "evolved"; the species died because the evolved machinery of genes didn't preclude such a mutation from killing a species in a handful of generations. Too bad, so sad. If there was an "evolution fairy", she would have designed a better machinery of genes. But if it is essential for the preferred use of the phrase "evolved to death" to describe events that take place instantaneously on an evolutionary time scale, I have to describe that phrase as misleading.

> it is still possible for a species to evolve to extinction directly.

Favor me with another example. I found the other examples lacking.

From the fog of my misunderstanding, I am surprised you would use the phrase "evolved to death" without it immediately being followed by qualifications and clarifications. I look forward to you removing this fog away from my person.

"Evolved to Extinction"? I would be personally loath to use that phrase.

"Evolved to Extinction" because female mice become rarer and rarer? "Female mice become rarer and rarer" is another way of saying at least 50% of all the genes in all the female individuals will make it to the next generation. Which is pretty damn good odds. Consider all the mutations in all those male individuals that will never get a chance to make it to the next generation, because the male individuals will never even get a chance to get close to a female, much less mate with one.

Virus "evolved to extinction" by killing the host before the host has a chance to spread the virus to another host? If such a mutation makes it past a few generations, and then later dies out, I would describe it as "having the chair pulled out from under it" because the host density, that previously allowed it replicate, changed. The host density went down (could be because people dropped dead faster than they could reproduce, but maybe it changed for another reason) and extinction followed.

"Evolved to Extinction" strikes me like saying "because you walked northbound to step onto a southbound train, you _really_ were walking southbound to begin with".

Also, unless something evolves the incredible ability to survive the heat-death of the universe, every species will "evolve to extinction".

I am really surprised you used the phrase "evolved to extinction".

The very first "compilation" I would suggest to your choice system would be to calculate the "Expected Utility of Success" for each Action.

1) It is rational to be prejudiced against Actions with a large difference between their "Expected Utility of Success" and their "Expected Utility", even if that action might have the highest "Expected Utility". People with a low tolerance for risk (constitutionally) would find the possible downside of such actions unacceptable.

2) Knowing the "Expected Utility of Success" gives information for future planning if success is realized. If success might be "winning a Hummer SUV in a raffle in December", it would probably be irrational to construct a "too small" car port in November, even with success being non-certain.

Eliezer, I have a question.

In a simple model, how best to avoid the failure mode of taking a course of action with an unacceptable chance of leading to catastrophic failure? I am inclined to compute separately, for each action, its probability of leading to a catastrophic failure, and immediately exclude from further consideration those actions that cross a certain threshold.

Is this how you would proceed?

Godshatter? What I may or may not have shat out of my divine anus is of no concern of yours.

Signed, God (big bearded guy in the sky)

Eliezer -

Would "innovation" in genetic error correction, or changes to the proteins responsible for allowing greater or fewer mutations in DNA...

...would such "meta-changes" (changes to the mechanisms of DNA replication) be the basis for group selection?

If different groups had slightly different rules for their DNA replication, intuitively I could see that their competition would be best understood as group selection.

Consider two groups, both formed by mating of a single mother pregnant with a son, leading to two groups with slightly different rules for their DNA replication.

We might expect to see this if some population was regularly exposed to absolutely devastating conditions, where the often a population would have to recover from a single individual, a mother pregnant with a son.

If not this, how did "innovations" to DNA error correction and selection for the different rules about how many mutations to allow in DNA copying even form in the first place?