[ExI] why anger?

Stathis Papaioannou stathisp at gmail.com
Fri Feb 26 12:22:12 UTC 2010

On 26 February 2010 14:21, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> ...
>>       * NEW SCIENTIST issue 2749.
>>       * 24 February 2010
>> Honesty is the best policy for climate scientists
>> FOR many environmentalists, all human influence on the planet is bad...
> Ja.  This attitude has made me uncomfortable for some time.  It seems to
> carry a fundamental misunderstanding of the process of evolution.  Humans
> evolved, so we are natural.  Our works are natural.  So if we create a world
> in which many or most species cannot survive, even accidentally, then that
> is as natural a process as the beaver creating a dam, flooding out and
> slaying the local endangered species, along with my brand new goddam pump
> house.
> If we alter our environment so that most species cannot survive but in which
> humans do just fine (being Africans only recently capable of moving away
> from the tropics) that represents an evolutionary process, and is natural.
> If we create an environment that (somehow) supports 100 billion humans but
> nothing else that does not directly support human life, is that not
> evolution?
> Does not that subset of environmentalism recognize that if humans manage to
> create a singularity and eventually transform all the metals of the solar
> system into an Mbrain or a bunch of Sbrains, this too is a natural product
> of evolution?  If we then send nanoprobes into the rest of the galaxy to
> turn other stars' metals into computronium, destroying all indigenous life
> there but facilitating the thinking of pure thought, is that not evolution
> in action?

To be strictly correct, those who oppose environment-altering
engineering have to change the language they use slightly to say that
that which nature created prior to the advent of technologically
capable humans is good and worth preserving.

Stathis Papaioannou

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list