[ExI] Evolving conservatism

[Kelly Anderson]

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Eric Messick
<eric at m056832107.syzygy.com>wrote:

> Rafal writes:
> >### Wait, anthropogenic climate change killing humanity through an ice
> age,
> >not through global warming? Did I understand you correctly?
>
> Not quite.  Let me try again.
>
> Keith was lamenting the lack of support for space based solar power.
>
> He was looking for an explanation of the hostility he sometimes sees
> to what looks to me like an obviously good idea.  How, he asks, did we
> evolve into creatures with such reactions?
>

The evolution and reproduction of memes is so much faster than the
evolution of genes that even asking about genes in this context seems wrong
headed. Recent studies have shown, for example, that just moving to a big
city reduces your conservatism. The flow of people to cities is one reason
that the future of conservatism looks so bleak in fact.

Rejecting potential solutions to problems which threaten your genes
> does not seem like a good survival strategy.
>

Change is sometimes good, sometimes bad. See Kevin Kelly's book "What
Technology Wants" for a full treatment. I especially like the chapters
about the Amish with regards to this question.

There has been selection pressure in the other direction.


So long as you are talking selection pressure in the memetic realm as well.


> Being conservative about accepting new ideas is adaptive because many new
> ideas are worse than the old way of doing things, which has worked for
> generations.
>

It can be adaptive. But what if one side developed better arms than the
other, and the other side didn't respond by adapting better arms. Then you
would not say that conservatism was adaptive. It would possibly lead to
extinction, in fact.


> Past ice ages may have altered the balance.  If the stresses they
> cause on populations are enough that the old ways no longer work, then
> people who cling too tightly to the old ways will die out, and less
> conservative people will be selected for.
>

That is true. Sometimes conservatism works, sometimes progressive thought
is required. Most of the time you need a combination of both. Rarely do you
find anyone who is absolutely pure on either side. Even the
arch-conservative Rush Limbaugh embraces new Apple products as soon as they
come out. Even the arch-liberal Barack Obama isn't advocating for open
polyamory as a valid lifestyle. So everyone is somewhere in the middle, and
this is as it should be.

We have constructed a world where everything changes much faster.
>

Isn't it grand? But does EVERYTHING change faster? Maybe it does, but
perhaps there are examples of things that still change slowly, or at least
so far they have.


> Being conservative in such an environment is less adaptive.
>

Not necessarily. I reject this outright because maybe the Amish will win in
the end. We can't tell for sure yet.


> Conservative pressures not to develop new power sources may result in
> a tragic die off. It may not be just the conservatives dying, though.
>

I see no scenario where only conservatives or only liberals will be dying.
In Atlas Shrugged, it was implied that the liberals would all die off. I'm
not sure that would really work outside of fiction. There are lesser
creators that are important too.


> Perhaps such a die off would be analogous to what happened in past ice
> ages.  Perhaps a slightly less conservative species will emerge.  In
> any case, it would be an awfully high price to pay.
>

This speaks too much to the importance of genetics, and minimizes memetics.


> Is there a better way to get people to accept change?
>

Advocate for better changes? Everyone accepts change. Look at how many
people now use cell phones. Everyone pretty much accepted that change.
Right?

 -Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140111/55621869/attachment.html>