[extropy-chat] Extinctions

Martin Striz mstriz at gmail.com
Mon Jun 12 16:33:57 UTC 2006


On 6/10/06, Damien Sullivan <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 11:05:05AM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> > Besides, if we really want to have more species, it will be cheaper to
> > make them tomorrow than spending a lot of effort on saving them today.
>
> This sort of gambling of present things for hypothetical future
> capability is part of what strikes normal people as wild-eyed optimism
> and religiousness about the Singularity.  "It doesn't matter what we do
> now we'll fix it later."  "We can't fix it now."  "But we will be able
> to!  Trust us!"

Amen.

Hominids in the ancestral environment faced a high mortality rate.  At
no time was it worth planning more than a few years ahead.  So when
they came upon a bounty, they used it up.  Lottery winners spend their
millions in an average of 4 years.  We are notoriously bad planners in
the long term.

And that feature seems to be ripe even within the transhumanist
community.  Put it on the card, because *somebody* will come along to
pay the bill someday.

> Genetic engineering misses the point, anyway.  Yeah, we might be able to
> make something, but what?  It's not just the diversity, it's the
> *design*, and the encoded history of the Earth, in the diversity today;
> that wouldn't be possible to replicate.

A more specific argument is that ecosystems are robust but sensitive.
Rapid introduction of a single species can have profound consequences
as many equilibria shift.  Rapidly introducing many species in a
superficial attempt to the fix the mess you made could be devastating.

As always, the real world is hard.  Harder than it sounds on paper.

Martin



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list