[extropy-chat] Two Errors: Intelligent Design and "Progress"
brian at posthuman.com
Sun Jan 22 17:27:19 UTC 2006
Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> I find it weak too, for a different reason. His argument that
> intelligence is not significative for survival doesn't work anymore
> when the same intelligence gives a species some powerful technology to
> change the environment: a moderately intelligent dinosaur may be not
> much fitter than a dumb one, but a dinosaur intelligent enough to
> detect the incoming asteroid and change its orbit is a hell of a lot
> fitter than a T. Rex.
Possibly, but while I was quickly scanning his page, I think he brought that up
somewhere and proposed the idea that greater intelligence also may create
additional risks for the species that did not exist prior to that point. In
other words, global catastrophic risks, which the upcoming book is exactly
about. Some of those risks might wipe out humans, but leave bacteria - so which
species had better survivability in the _long run_?
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
More information about the extropy-chat