[ExI] Evolving conservatism (was: far future)

[Eric Messick]

Keith Henson writes:
> [... Space based solar power ]
> runs into serious opposition, a lot of it from people of
>considerable influence who have decided that the not so distant future
>will include a massive die off of the human race back to one or two
>billion people. They tend not to talk about this belief, but when you
>mention that there might be an alternative where with lower energy
>cost, where people could be much better off, they get really hostile.
>
>Any thoughts on why people are fixated on this belief?  It's almost
>like an unspoken religion to them. Second, any thoughts on how to get
>around this resistance to good news?
>
>If you can frame your answers in evolutionary psychology terms it
>would help.  I find a lot of weird human behavior makes better sense
>that way.  Google sex drugs cults for a bit of my musings on this
>topic.

I think this is a fundamental question that needs to be addressed in
order for us to be able to get traction in a variety of areas.  Keith
mentions the critical area of expanding our energy options.  I see
similar stumbling blocks thrown in front of advocates of computer
security advances.  Medical research into extending lifespan seems to
receive insanely small funding for something with a promise of a huge
payoff.  Hostility to cryonics likely falls into this category as
well.

It's hard to know for sure what goes on in the heads of people who are
resistant to new ideas.  From an evolutionary psychology perspective I
might guess that a conservative position makes sense most of the time.

  I do things the way my grandparents did them because it worked for
  them.  Change is likely to upset the balance of something I don't
  understand, and may threaten the survival of my genes.

In the mind of a powerful person controlling resources which could
implement beneficial change this could manifest itself as:

  I got to my current position of power and comfort within the
  existing system.  A new system will change the distribution of
  power, and I may not end up on top.

So, questions to ask might be:  when have humans faced the decision
to either change their ways or die?  What did it take to drive that
change in the face of a long history of proven success?

The first thing to come to mind is climate change in the form of ice
ages.  My impression is that such changes involved massive die offs,
until only those following new ways survived.  The old ways which had
been proven to succeed were now failing.

An interesting way to trick our conservative sense might involve the
media.  Since people hear news reports from a much wider area now,
they believe that events that are reported (like crime) are becoming
more prevalent, when the actual trend is the reverse.  Perhaps media
reports of impending climactic disaster will convince people that the
old ways are leading to our doom, and we should try new ways.  It
actually feels as if there are people trying this, but the conservatives
are still not budging.  I'm not sure I like the idea of even more
biased news reporting, though.

I'm still not sure if or why the people in power that Keith refers to
above actually *want* a big die off.  Perhaps it's the best way their
genes have come up with for advocating change...

-eric