[ExI] Isn't Bostrom seriously bordering on the reactionary?
hkeithhenson at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 17:00:11 UTC 2011
2011/6/16 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:
> On 15 June 2011 16:30, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> A species that has no breeding population is today considered extinct.
>> It is consider a different species when it can no longer interbreed
>> with the parent species.
> This is a very interesting issue.
> While synchronically the concept of (sexed) species is clear enough - that
> is, the set of individuals who can naturally interbreed - it becomes much
> fuzzier diacronically.
> In fact, not only can remote ancestors not breed anyway with remote
> descendents because in principle they are... dead
That's no longer applicable. I don't know exactly how far we could go
back, but it would be possible to breed with people 40,000 years dead
at least. Long as there is DNA to clone.
> when the latter become
> fertile, but the genetic, anatomical, ethological difference is bound with
> sufficient time to become large enough to prevent such a scenario even in
Hybrids of elephants and orchids oh my.
Seriously, horses and donkeys don't even have the same chromosome
number. Neither do humans and chimps. There is evidence in the genes
that the split took a million years.
> At another level, I am of course deeply concerned that my own more immediate
> matrioska communities (Milan, Padania, Italy, Europe) are being and may
> increasingly be left behind and see a widening gap with China, India, etc..
> Or with the US, for that matter.
When the cost to the "do gooders" gets low enough, they will come
knocking on everyone's door. That was the thought behind "The Clinic
More information about the extropy-chat