Posts
Wiki Contributions
He's referring to biological value, as it's defined in: "What is value?". Biological value is not the same as the type of value that you're thinking of. It's distinct from the other types of value. Biological value claims are truth claims, unlike other types of value claims. A claim about biological value, such as "cutting down the tree is bad for the tree" or "overdosing on fentanyl is bad for you" is a truth judgment, not a value judgment. I could want to cut down the tree, and still understand that it is bad for the tree to be cut down.
Not only weren't organisms created to reproduce.
Organisms are designed to reproduce. If organisms weren't designed to reproduce, then they won't reproduce, they will have no descendants, and organisms will stop existing altogether.
Organisms just do what they do. They exist because certain structures tend to reproduce themselves, and those structures can occur naturally.
Yes, exactly.
It's dangerous to do even that.
No, it isn't. It's impossible to describe biology without using normative language, since biology is intrinsically teleological. I don't understand why this is a stumbling block. We always use normative language when talking about biology. Normative language is often used descriptively, as in "this soil is good/optimal for pine trees". Or "smoking is bad for one's health and fertility". Disease is "dis"-"ease". Disorder is "dis"-"order". There is no way to talk about biology without using normative terms.
Evolution selects forms based on their effects. Thus, the effects explain the form. But it's not just the effects. Certain effects, which might not even be probable, explain the form. Those effects are the telos. The telos explains the form.
You have to be careful to remember that the word "purpose" there is a metaphor.
I really don't understand what your issue is. He said "biological purpose", not purpose in general. The author understands that biological purpose is not the same thing as subjective purpose. These two types of purpose are clearly different concepts, and I see no conceptual mess. There is no ambiguity here.
You misunderstand that paragraph. I'm friends with the author, and he doesn't believe in objective morality, nor does he believe that it's "morally correct" to reproduce. Replicating a genome implies reproduction (unless it's the genome is being artificially created through cloning), but reproduction doesn't necessarily imply replicating a genome. For example, if you reproduce with someone who has very different genetics (i.e. someone from a different race), then half of the offspring's genome would be quite different from your genome, compared to if you reproduced with someone from the same race as you.
He does believe that organism's biological purpose is to reproduce, but that doesn't mean that he believes that organisms should reproduce. It's up to the organism whether it reproduces or not. As he said at the beginning of the paragraph: "I do not believe there is a correct number of children to have". From that statement, it's implied that he doesn't think it's "incorrect" to have no children at all, so I don't understand why you concluded that he thinks that it's "morally correct" to reproduce.
"An organism's biological purpose is simply to reproduce" is a truth claim, not a value claim. The only value claim that he stated in that paragraph was "I do not believe there is a correct number of children to have".
1Could you please explain why "biological purpose" points to a conceptual mess?
Was there anything in particular that you specifically disagree with Van Allen on, either in my summary or the first (free) chapter of his book? I shared the link that you sent me with him on Discord, and he told me that he's seen it before. He also said that the link that you sent still doesn't specify the structure in enough detail, as far as he can see, and that it doesn't really matter.
Like, I noticed that O'Neill proposed: 1. retrieving the cylinder materials from the Moon and 2. setting up either a Rotary Pellet Launcher or a Transport Linear Accelerator for retrieving materials from the Moon to make the construction cheaper. I agree that he didn't address this possibility in the book, but I don't fully understand your criticism regarding the steel structure math.
You might be more knowledgeable on this topic than I am, so I'm also wondering if you know of any sources where O'Neill gave a more specific description of what he was thinking about? For example, I'm trying to figure out what O'Neill proposed for the thickness of the original cylinder hull. I can't find it on Wikipedia or in the link that you sent me, and I think this is a huge deal because the exact dimension of the hull thickness can greatly change the amount of materials that are required for building the cylinder.
The square/cube isn't really relevant to the O'Neill cylinder itself, but it is relevant when considering what kinds of space infrastructure could be created to launch the cylinder or its components into space. I agree with the reasoning that he stated in the book regarding this topic.
I think he's right about the maximum length of steel cables at Earth surface gravity. Granted, space would have much weaker gravity, so assembling an O'Neil cylinder in space and having it never land on any planets could make this a non-issue.
Also, the bullet points are my attempt to summarize what he wrote. They're not what he actually wrote. But the first chapter of Van Allen's book is free to read on Amazon as a sample if you'd like, and it includes everything that I was trying to summarize.
Anyway, thank you for sharing the link.
I don't believe that gene-editing is a viable solution to preventing dysgenics for the entire population.
Unregulated reproduction has the potential to harm others, so it's reasonable to regulate it.
1The Race FAQs has lots of high-quality information on genetic group differences: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/race
I don't support the past eugenics or forced sterilizations that you've mentioned. However, I still support eugenics. I argue that reproduction licenses would protect human rights: https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/eugenics#human-rights
This is a great idea. I've brainstormed and compiled a list of additional ideas that could also help raise fertility rates. https://zerocontradictions.net/faqs/overpopulation#boosting-western-fertility
This is honestly some of the best feedback that I've received on this site, so thank you for your comment. I edited the introduction and I clarified what I meant by "redundant" research.
I once tried to quantify the validity of academic research, but I gave up on trying that. I talk more about this in my reply to Seth Herd.
If you think that "humans will be living on Mars and O'Neill cylinders 30 years from now", then you probably haven't tried to calculate whether that's actually economically feasible and whether it's practical to get to Mars and live there:
And that's only the cost to put an O'Neil Cylinder in Low-Earth Orbit. If we had to send an O'Neil Cylinder to Mars (or something that's comparable for sustaining human life), then the costs for space travel get exponentially worse than that due to the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation.
For more information, I recommend reading Futurist Fantasies by T. K. Van Allen. The book packs an impressive amount of information into just 100 pages.
It is true. You can't make more land. Humans still must obey the laws of physics, whether we like it or not. Both the Moon and Mars are absolutely horrible places for any human to live, so humanity has nothing to gain from trying to live outside the Earth.
Now, I already showed my calculations for why I believe it's far too expensive to try that. I didn't even go over all the physical challenges that would make it virtually impossible. My judgment is that space colonization won't be possible for several decades, possibly longer, and probably never. It will probably take many people and many LessWrongers a while to reach similar conclusions.
In the 1960s, people thought that Humanity would've achieved the technological advancements in 2001: A Space Odyssey two decades ago, and that still hasn't happen by now. People need to recognize that technological process has clearly slowed down, and we've nearly reached its limits.
Another misconception that's worth clarifying is that the value of land matters more than the supply of land. There's obvious reasons why lots in Manhattan are worth more than acres in the Sahara Desert.
No, that's a huge oversimplification, and it's much more complicated than that. Any society would have to wait at least a few decades to transition to Georgism, but then the benefits will become progressive and compounding. I recommend reading Georgism Crash Course for a concise introduction.
Because we live in reality, not a sci-fi fantasy world where humans are invincible.
Even if humans could live on Mars, why would anyone want to live on Mars when you can live on Earth instead? Even Antarctica is a thousand times better than Mars. I will never understand why people fantasize about colonizing Mars when humans haven't even colonized Antarctica.