[ExI] endpoint of evolution: was RE: why anger?
spike66 at att.net
Fri Feb 26 17:28:49 UTC 2010
> ...On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou...
> 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
Ja Stathis, I agree and wish to get more to your point. By simulating the
previously evolved life, the creation of an MBrain is the only evolutionary
path that makes sense to me. I don't see how we can create sufficient
nature preserves for all of it on a long term basis. We haven't been
particularly successful with that approach so far, and the future looks less
promising for nature preserves than today.
I can easily imagine something analogous to a robust religion of some sort,
arising and declaring that pretty much all lifeforms other than sheep or
cattle are unclean, and are worthy of only neglect or brutal destruction for
instance. Any humans who oppose this course of action would also be
considered unclean and worthy of destruction.
Humankind appears to be tragically susceptible to these kinds of notions.
The scary part is that an MBrain could also be susceptible to these kinds of
More information about the extropy-chat