๐ณ๐ฑ
Evolution always seeks to create a population such that its goal is the proliferation of that species in the short term (in evolutionary terms) with no regard for the future.
Moral conscience is only beneficial to a species when the species exists globally such that there are little or no free resources. Only then is the greater good more beneficial to the survival of the species than the individual or the good of the pack/tribe over another pack/tribe.
However on the flip side intellectual evolution is an advantage even in very sparse populations with plentiful resources. Greater intelligence means you can harvest and utilize those resources more quickly and put them to use growing your family or tribe as well as defending it.
As such due to the nature of evolution moral evolution is doomed to always lag considerably behind intelligent evolution. Furthermore since evolution is, in human life span terms, a very slow process, it isnt something that should be expected to catch up until many generations, and a lot of death has passed first. Due to the nature of intelligence to enable us to find more effective ways of killing ourselves this can inevitably lead to a species destroying itself long before its moral evolution has a chance to balance the equation.
It is this reason that many scientists speculate why we dont see very many radio signals in space indicating alien intelligent life, the theory goes that the very nature of evolution is such that life will almost inevitably destroy itself once it reaches the intellectual singularity before it has a chance to become interstellar and as such simply doesn't have a very long time span where it exists in a state where it gives off radio waves.
Sadly we dont appear as though we are going to be much different in that regard.
@sergiopantalone As a reply here or in the document itself?
@freemo Either way. I think it's a neat argument but I'm just having a little trouble following how morality arises from scarcity.
@sergiopantalone morality doesn't arise from scarcity in terms of human behavior, but it does in terms of evolution.
Selfishness is not efficient, it gives the individual the best chances but will happily waste resources if it means the individual gets more, especially if it is other people's resources. There is no sense of the greater good.
Evolution on the other hand cares about the proliferation of the species (or rather the genes that embody that species) and as such when scarcity arises the evolutionary pressure would be towards resource efficiency over individual gain.
So in an environment with scarcity where evolution has had a long enough time to have its effect, a group morality would inherently arise.
@freemo I get it now. Thanks!
@sergiopantalone oops thought you were talking about something else....
@freemo there are alternatives: ET occupies a world in which EM radiation never developed as a useful means of communication, hence no observables. low natural birth rate + lack of interspecies competition + strong cooperative biases make ET less violent (IOW space bononos)
@2ck Thats not really an alternative is it?
"ET occupies a world in which EM radiation never developed"
Not sure what this means but as I see it it can mean one of two things...
1) ET takes places in a universe with different laws of physics that make it so EM is not useful for communication. In which case it wouldn't apply for our universe.
2) The species just never figures out how to use it as a useful form of communication. In which case they are terribly intelligent, at least not at our level yet.
As to your other point "low natural birth rate + lack of interspecies competition + strong cooperative biases" doesnt add up for me either.
1) low natural birth rate does not effect the evolutionary equation for selfishness. As we observe in species lower natural birthrate is coupled with a greater investment in resources per-child, and thus the main evolutionary drive to create species with lower birth rates than others. More resources per child results in greater chance per child of survivability. The overall need of resources for all of a mothers children per-unit-time remains the same in lower birth rate species more or less
2) lack of interspecies competition wouldnt matter either. The drive for selfishness is just as strong, if not more so, out of competition with ones own species. Remember the drive of evolution is **not** to propagate the species, it is to propagate ones own genes at the expense of everyone elses genes, including those in your own species. Therefore intraspecies competition would be as much a drive as interspecies competition. Which is inherent.
3) strong cooperative biases are moot to the argument as that is what the whole discussing is about in the first place so it dodges the question to assume a species could somehow have such biases. Generally evolution does not promote strong cooperative biases outside of a small group (a family or tribe) and does not appear as a quality between members of a whole species except where, as I stated, resources are extremely limited such that a species has reached the carrying capacity for its niche.
@freemo why do you assume an intelligent species that we could detect communicates with radio waves? since we don't know how prevalent complex life is, any conclusion like that is B.S., isn't it?
@2ck Because EM waves move at light speed and there is no form of communication equally as useful that would be accessible to most developing species.
How else would you propose they communicate long distance that wouldnt be far beyond the initial levels of science a species would develop?
@freemo whale-like species in a world ocean communicating through low frequency vibrations. planetary network of intelligent plants communicating by RNA-coded messages through their roots.
anyway, maybe there's no need for long distance communication for ET: they all live in a small enough region of their planet that they don't need long-range
@2ck Whale-like species are not intellectually advanced, if they were they wouldnt be communication through low-frequency vibrations alone and would employ EM.
Low frequency ocean communication is far inferior to EM for several reasons.
1) it has extremely low temporal resolution. Therefore can only communicate very small amounts of information. Nothing even approaching reasonable data rates for communication could be achieved
2) it only works when the ocean conditions are just right. Most of the time at any given moment a whale is completely unable to communicate globally using this method. It is only when conditions are just right that global windows open up.
Etcetera.
The other idea of chemical communication through roots would likewise be limited in all likelihood. It would effectively be a chemical mesh network which current theory already tells us can not work in global, public, high speed, communications network due to some fundamental limitations.
As for not needing global communication. Sure that could work for a species. But would be invalid if we are talking about any species capable of interstellar travel, or even travel across their own planet. Which is exactly the type of species we are talking about.
@freemo you never said we're talking interstellar. are you assuming that any other intelligent life would have been observed by us by now?
The main argument of the OP is that life never reaches the point of their evolution to become interstellar, or to give off much in the way of EM we can detect in general, because the time between a species advances enough to both need and utilize EM is shortly before the point a species is advanced enough that it kills itself off as well.
@freemo our facing grace is our swiftly approaching capacity for genetic engineering. Not only will we be able to modify organisms that will then improve the environment(Like making Azolla salt water resistant, leading to incredible carbon sequestration), but we will be able to modify ourselves to be perfectly suited to nearly any environment. Any similarly intelligent organism would likely eventually gain the same ability.
@Demosthenes im not sure that would help.. i mean sure dont get me wrong it might help stem the tide and fix some issues, for example stemming global warming. At best it will somewhat increase our carrying capacity as a species. But that carrying capacity will still be finite and our growth rate still exponential. So it might buy us a few years at best.
@freemo actually, our growth rate is quickly leveling off, and current projections predict that the population will stabilize at about 11 billion.
I highly recommend the book Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think. It describes several common cognitive distortions pushed by media companies that make people think that things are much worse off than they actually are. Nuclear weapons are still an existential threat, and global warming probably will be within a century and a half, but population levels won't be too big of an issue. Several decades at current rates of technological advancement will bring things that we can't predict at the moment.
@Demosthenes Thats not actually true, though often argued. From 1930 to today the US growth rate has consistently wobbled both up and down with no apparent trend in either direction. Prior to 1930's it has consistently went up, we see the same trend in most first world countries no particular trend int he growth rate decreasing but with it staying at relatively constant levels with wobble.
The reason for the misconception in data is because industrialization causes a signficaint explosion in population rates which then stop their upward trend but level off at a positive growth rate.
In short we remain steadily at annualized 1% - 2% growth which is not a trend towards leveling off population growth (which is the integral of that)
@freemo you're talking about the US population, which is heavily affected by immigration. I'm talking about the global population, which is overall seeing a massive levelling off. When lower-income countries become middle-income, reproduction rates plummit as parents become sure that their children will survive, combined with the trend that child labor also generally becomes outlawed, significantly increasing the cost of childcare and maintenance.
@Demosthenes I'm talking global as well, I am uSa as an example because you must understand the global rate is the result of the composite across the various individuals nations.
I am trying to explain why the expected result, based on nations that have already "leveled off" is that the growth rate will not go into the negative and is not headed there... individual nations follow the trend of hitting huge spike during industrialization, and then decreasing and hovering for an extended period at positive growth rate with no further trend downward past 0.. since the individuals nations all show the same trend, then one would infer the global rates would follow the same trend, and so far have.
@freemo complete industrialization isn't necessary for the population to level off, only a certain threshold of security. Most nations see a generational population surge when medical and economic status reach a threshold of childhood survival. The next generation almost always has about 3 children, with subsequent generations having on average 2, which does cause a population decline over time.
i highly recommend you check out that book, it explains it much better than me..
The absolutely only reason why industrialized countries are still seeing a population increase is because of immigration and the children of immigrants. The reproduction rate of natives in the US, Canada, and Europe are all below 2.
@Demosthenes Whether complete industrialization is needed or not is the point.
The fundamental fact remains we dont see nations trending towards 0% or below, almost ever (unless there is disease or famine, and then only temporarily).. We see all nations that have leveled off at all follow the same trend in almost all cases.. The stabilize a few percentage points in the positive and stay there with no additional downward trend.
@freemo this is absolutely true, but I'm not sure you truly grasp how much of an abberation this is. It's the nature of an organism to reproduce until it reaches carrying capacity, generally stopped only by a limitation on resources. This causes considerable conflict.
Humans are reaching a point where there will be population stasis _without_ actually hitting their carrying capacity. Over time, that will considerably reduce the chance of global conflict.
There will still be conflict over scarce global resources, but the ferocity of those conflicts will be significantly suppressed. All civil wars and most conflicts are precipitated by famines and resource shortages.
It bodes well for the long-term stability of our species, making it likely that we'll at least make it to Mars before killing ourselves.
@Demosthenes Exactly, but thats just it, we **are** being stopped by carrying capacity, we just arent there yet.
Again taking the USA as an example, most people cant afford to have 15 children , two kids would be a financial struggle for most people. You cant just send them out to forage and your good.
While there are certainlys ome well to do people who are having far fewer kids than they otherwise could support, there are others who have quite a few. The truth is, however, there are a lot of people out there getting abortions solely based on the fact that they couldnt support their kids if they didnt.
@freemo people who choose not to have 15 kids aren't hitting their carrying capacity, they're just making a trade-off between quality of life and family size. A mother could have 15 children and get most of their calories from the dumpster. They can get a minimum wage job and just buy rice, eating like they do in Subsaharan Africa. But they don't. THAT is the abberation.
People used to have as many kids as they could, and if some died, oh well. They still live like that in a lot of the world. But people are getting beyond that, and it's going to change humanity.
@freemo I gotta head to bed. Again, I highly recommend that book Factfulness. It's very erudite.
Have a great night!
@Demosthenes your assuming a persons needs are just food and not quality of life though...
People 400 years ago had lots and lots of kids. The reason is because land (a resource) was effecively infinite back then.. more kids means more farm land you can plow, means more resources...
Today resources are scarce, you cant just pop out a kid and give him his own plot of land to feed himself. Now you have to complete for the competitively priced food at the grocery store and most people have neither the means or access to any resources to feed 15 kids without making their life worse... a few hundred years ago having kids didnt thin out your resources though or make your life worse, there was always more land.
@freemo resources have always been scarce. If not limited by land, we've been historically been limited by fixed nitrogen, available micro or macronutrients, or on a tribal basis, security. People still starve in many regions because of resource limitations, and it's actually in those sorts of areas that reproduction rates are highest.
Quality of life is not a need. If you look at Maslow's heitarchy of needs, things like self-actualization and the need to feel like a part of a tribe are well above things like food, water, and shelter. Quality of life is a luxury given by being secure in your survival and continued existence.
@Demosthenes limited resources in terms of fixed nitrogen or nutrients isn't really equivocal.. these are limits in concentration, not overall quantity. There is more than enough total nitrogen/nutrients for everyone 2000 years ago in terms of total nitrogen/nutrients across the planet.. the issue is that the concentration of nutrients in certain foods are so low that it would take too much effort for an individual to get those nutrients balanced with the correct amount of energy...
In other words the shortage of the types of resources youa re talking about is not a shortage that comes from competition pressures, therefore isnt relevant to the discussion.
@freemo survival requires defeating entropy. If it takes too much of an effort to obtain certain chemicals, organisms die as a result of the negative energy balance. The existing organisms compete with one another to get the nutrients that are actually energetically accessible.
I think we're bickering a bit about minor details here. We're really just talking about the carrying capacity of humans. You're saying that we've hit our capacity in USA, right? If that were the case, then why would reproduction rates be highest in regions where poverty is highest, like in rural Africa?
@Demosthenes Im not saying we hit our capacity, I am saying that the slow down in growth rate is not due to any personal choices or human understanding. It is the result of being closer (not hit) to the carrying capacity.
The reason reproduction rate is highest in africa is because population density is much lower there, therefore they are much farther away from their carrying capacity. also brith rate is **not** equal to growth rate.. Even at or near carrying capacity birth rate can be rather high in a species, but the growth rate will be low.
@happymoomoo its hard to answer questions of the nature "if we had the tech".. since its hard to know what tech is even possible if we havent accomplished it yet..
It depends on so many factors.
But thats a bit of circular argument...
it basically says "if we had the tech to support large populations (a mega city) then we could support a large population (trillions of people)"...
Well sure, but is such tech possible or within arms reach? That I dont know, but I dont think so.
@happymoomoo @freemo @Demosthenes Thereโs no room for failure then. No wildlife buffer for when our plans go bad and our city fails to provide. Thereโs no freedom, always living on the edge of resource collapse, never โwastingโ any opportunity to consume more. Thereโs no wonder, since everything everywhere is known, determined, and planned. Thereโs no escape.
@freemo population density in the US is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than in many Asian countries, or even in many cities in Africa. If reproduction rate was a function of population density,wouldn't we see higher growth rates in most of the US?
@Demosthenes you asked about africa overall, you cant refind the scope to just areas that are locally dense due to free movement into and out of the city and lack of data on the growth rate due to only births local to the city. The data we have is usually country-wide in terms of growth rate and as such that is the narrowest scope we can discuss
@freemo if we're talking nationwide then, then population density is extremely low in the US compared to many countries. Why then would our native reproduction rates be so low?
Note that inequality limits access to land in most countries nowadays, not just the US, yet many lower-income nations still have high reproduction rates.
@Demosthenes @freemo Reproductive rate increases with population density. Itโs like concentrating the energy density of your fuel source. You have a low temperature fire slowly burning in a large area, and then you have dynamite.
โฆreproduction rate also increases with poverty, so it can be high in rural areas too. Really the biggest factor Iโve seen reliably affecting population growth is womenโs rights.
No, growth rate and fertility do go down with higher population density due to carrying capacity effects.
Now if you had infinite resources then you would be correct, it is unbounded in that case. But when resources are finite it follows the Verhulst equation.
I wrote a paper explaining this and the math behind it. It covers the unrestricted exponential growth as well as how when there are limited resources it becomes restricted logarithmic growth (verhulst equation):
http://jeffreyfreeman.me/restricted-logarithmic-growth-with-injection/
@freemo Could you expand a little more on the second paragraph? Or provide additional resources?