which makes no sense on it’s face, as as evolution (and nature itself) is fundamentally competitive. you might as well say we should ‘compile ourselves past compilers’.
Artificial selection need not be competitive in the same way that natural selection is. And even if it were, competition between genes doesn't necessarily equate to competition between individuals.
And certainly there is no competitive or evolutionary advantage for one person (or geneset) to convince a naive group of individuals that is what is going on while they pull the strings in the background.
Or a person or set of individuals to pretend to be going along with said program (if said program is honest) while actually abusing/manipulating the program to benefit them eh? [https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/late...] among dozens (hundreds?) of others.
Competitive societies have more and more serious mental health issues. What program are you referring to? When I mentioned evolving past competition, I didn't say anything about gene-based evolution, but social evolution, where we consciously place a higher value on cooperation over competition.
Gene based evolution is constant. There is no way to avoid it; any more than it’s possible to avoid a compiler (somewhere) for any decent sized computer program, even if you’re writing in Python.
So what you’re describing is not what you think you’re describing at all.
Those ‘non-competitive’ societies are actually just those where the competition has been decided through structural elements which are not currently being contested to the same extent. Because someone either ‘won’ the war already, or the ‘war’ is more subtle and manipulative rather than being out in the open.
If you happen to be on the ‘winning’ side of that war, then that looks great. If you’re on the losing side, you won’t get much of a chance to notice or fight about it. And what cannot be ‘seen’, ‘doesn’t exist’.
War, after all, only can occur when someone is able to actually fight - and can see a reason to want to.
Because in either one, someone is making the choices (explicitly, or implicitly!) which decide whose genes actually end up spreading.
Complaining about mental health issues in competitive societies is like complaining about people getting maimed in war. And if people just stopped trying to fight back, then hey, world peace! (Once whatever Emperor conquered first won, of course)
Society is the increasingly abstract and confusing game we build on top of all this so we’re not all writing the equivalent of assembly - aka Ghenghis Khan’ng each other. But it’s all the same at the end of the day - the computer (aka reality) runs whatever instructions gets spit out (aka genes). And whoever decides that, ‘wins’.
Okay. But if social norms lead to almost everyone mating randomly and couples having the same number of kids on average, then what happens to genetic evolution?
The advancement and flourishing of the human species. But that's beside the point. What rbanffy suggests might be absurd, but not because it somehow violates the laws of biology.
I don’t see any point in human history where what is being described matches any stable human behavior. So while not impossible, it is probably unlikely eh?
And think of what that would actually mean, and if you’d even want it - you’d be as likely to match up with a random Chinese 60 year old, or a 13 year old African tribe member, or 30 something European (while being one of those other two) or whatever.
I can’t think of any sane person that would be willing to mate with someone truly randomly. And if it wasn’t truly random, who gets to decide on the criteria? Because that is exactly where the moral hazard comes in.
> you’d be as likely to match up with a random Chinese 60 year old, or a 13 year old African tribe member, or 30 something European
Any such system would probably match people within the same generation. At a future point humans may be far more ethnically homogeneous. Or reproduction may be separated from romance - you donate to the seed bank but sex is a sterile act. There's lots of possibilities. I admit most look unlikely; but like, if that's what it takes to thrive at a galactic level, then it's simply unlikely we never reach that level. But let's not pretend that this is some sort of fundamental biological impossibility.
You seem to have some trouble with words and concepts. And what seems to be a - creepy? - obsession with people losing their individual reproductive autonomy for some nebulous ‘greater good’.
Taking a hammer and using it to smash my hand for no individual benefit is unlikely and makes no sense, but certainly not impossible. Everyone on the planet doing it all at once, continuously, is also technically not impossible - but is never going to happen. For reasons that are very good for humanity in the long run.
Such as it is with evolution.
Not unless the borg take over anyway. Which we all should hope never, ever, happens.
There's no need for that hostility. I'm just spitballing charitable interpretations of rbanffy's statement. And you have pushed impossibility arguments e.g.
> Gene based evolution is constant. There is no way to avoid it
Regardless of what humans do, gene based evolution is constant. And even if we go full cloning - there is still gene based evolution which can (and certainly would) occur even in humans because humans work like humans. Regardless of what we pretend to work as.
Which is back to my original point. You can’t ‘compile your way out of compilers’ either. The entire discussion is just ignoring actual reality in a way that makes no actual sense to even discuss.
