[ExI] Fermi Paradox and Transcension

[Anders Sandberg]

On 13/09/2012 20:54, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Seems logical to me. Life tends to expand into ALL available niches.
>>> Why would that stop now?
>> For the same reason that we will soon be controlling evolution.  Intelligence.
> I don't find that very convincing. Even intelligent life wants to
> reproduce itself.

(also relevant to Keith's new calibrating social models thread:)
"Small family size increases the wealth of descendants but reduces 
evolutionary success"
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/08/28/small.family.size.increases.wealth.descendants.reduces.evolutionary.success
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/08/27/rspb.2012.1415
It turns out that people rationally have fewer children because it gives 
them a better life, despite this being long-term worse for their genes.

And of course, plenty of humans choose to be celibate, use 
contraceptives or have fewer children. A classic finding in modern 
demography is that introducing television soap operas showing rich 
families with few kids in Brazilian and Indian rural villages reduces 
fertility significantly. It turns out that the number of kids people 
have is very culturally and individually pliable: far more than if there 
were an innate drive to reproduce.

Over long spans of time pro-breeding memes or genes are likely to 
flourish, but they can express themselves in ways that actually 
population-limiting, like the above care for the future prospects of the 
children.


-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University