Modern American conservatism is simultaneously evil and insane

[lemur]

My concern surrounds the way our population gets larger faster as more people are born and they too continue to reproduce. My concern is that we are spreading like locusts without clear plans for food, clean water, clean air, and social cohesion (avoidance of war and conflict, for example). At some point our success with reproduction and survival which has helped us to propagate for so long will itself become our downfall... That is, of course, unless we plan and use these giant cortexes of ours to setup the future in a way which can sustain us... Focus on tomorrow and next year instead of just benefits of today.

This is classic Malthusian logic.

 

Yes, I tend to agree. My larger motivation was to draw attention to the fact that Jackson was FAR FAR FAR oversimplifying things by suggesting that an area the size of Texas could support the entire population of the planet. Speaking from experience, having lived myself in Texas for some time, the concerns of water are especially relevant to such a suggestion.

Jackson was presenting the classical counter-argument to Malthusian, namely that in practice Malthusian pessimism has always been transcended by new technologies and growth sustainability far beyond what was predicted to be bearable in the past.

 

A very lovely point. I like how you've expressed this. It sort of grabs the heart of the matter by the short and curlies. The insanity and evil in this is that people argue using the rhetoric of freedom for things which will ultimately curtail it in the long run.

Then the solution is not to abandon the ideology of individualism because people are appropriating it for unsustainable cultural choices. Instead you should be pointing out how certain individual choices curtail the freedom of other individuals. In fact, most widespread cultural practices are widespread precisely because people fail to act independently and instead respond, usually sub-consciously, to conformist influences. Many people, for example, could change their lifestyles in a way that drastically reduces their driving and substitutes walking or cycling, both of which allow for much denser urban living. However, for individuals to choose to walk or bike requires them to appear non-conformist to their peers, which is enough to deter many people from even thinking about making such choices.

 

If people, with or without government involvement, would choose to promote cultural independence by withholding judgment of cultural choices on a conformist basis, more individual freedom would be exercised to experiment with more sustainable living practices. So it's not really individual freedom that is the barrier to greater sustainability but conformism.

 

 

 

 

[iNow]

This is classic Malthusian logic.

How do you figure? I disagree. I was not suggesting that population growth always exceeds the available food supply. I was stating that one thing which concerns me is where our focus resides as humanity... at least within the US. It concerns me greatly that we can barely get people to accept the validity of evolution, let alone make intelligent plans for the future and ensure water supply.

 

Despairing that our focus is on the wrong things, or that climate change is a major issue which requires major steps to mitigate, is HARDLY a worldview that population growth always exceeds available food supply. I understand there are certain overlaps in what I'm saying with what Malthus argued, but I fear you are dismissing my point unnecessarily with your implicit suggestion that it is somehow extreme.

 

Further, I think you give Jackson too much credit. He was not countering a Malthusian argument by suggesting that tech will overcome resource limitations. He was suggesting that an area the size of Texas could support all 7 billion people on the planet. I pointed out that his comment was an oversimplification, and due to it's over-simplicity was not accurate.

[lemur]

How do you figure? I disagree. I was not suggesting that population growth always exceeds the available food supply. I was stating that one thing which concerns me is where our focus resides as humanity... at least within the US. It concerns me greatly that we can barely get people to accept the validity of evolution, let alone make intelligent plans for the future and ensure water supply.

I understood and accepted evolution long before I ever even studied or understood creationism or Judeo-Christianity generally. However, now that I do understand the worldview that goes with religious perspective, I think it is narrow to say what you have, which many others say as well, that belief/acceptance of evolution should somehow be used as a litmus test for people's right and ability to have their own worldview regarding reproduction. People who are religious believe in an infinity bounty of the universe, even if it is yet only potential or nascent. They basically think that God will provide for however many people inhabit the universe. They assume that technological advances and cultural reforms will be the miracles that pave the road to an ever abundant future. There is certainly no counter-evidence for this in history and social darwinists, with their emphasis on extinction of less fit organisms to pave the way for an enhanced elite to survive and progress harbors a cynicism that others have a right to eschew, imo, regardless of how much evidence supports this way of looking at ecological history.

 

Despairing that our focus is on the wrong things, or that climate change is a major issue which requires major steps to mitigate, is HARDLY a worldview that population growth always exceeds available food supply. I understand there are certain overlaps in what I'm saying with what Malthus argued, but I fear you are dismissing my point unnecessarily with your implicit suggestion that it is somehow extreme.

Personally, I believe that reforms could be made that would neutralize CO2 output in ways that would liberate reproductive freedom by reducing per capita CO2 output and, more importantly imo, fossil fuel usage. However, I do understand how people have come to see climate change mitigation as a new malthusianism that substitutes ecological disaster for the tradition war/famine/plague scenarios of malthusian overpopulation. I would say if you want to garner support for climate change mitigations the way to do that would be to frame it in positive terms. I watched a speech by Bill Gates in which he was extremely optimistic about CO2 neutrality. If you clearly describe cultural and industrial practices that will achieve emissions standards and present them as doable and desirable and explain why and how, I think there would be more support. The problem is that right now people have the idea that they will not survive the economic and cultural reforms called for so they give up even considering them.

 

 

Further, I think you give Jackson too much credit. He was not countering a Malthusian argument by suggesting that tech will overcome resource limitations. He was suggesting that an area the size of Texas could support all 7 billion people on the planet. I pointed out that his comment was an oversimplification, and due to it's over-simplicity was not accurate.

Read the rest of his post. I found it to be a pretty well elaborated counter-malthusian position. The Texas-area part was just the part I liked best because it was a concrete comparison, including noting that the density would not much exceed the density of many urban cities.

 

 

 

[iNow]

I think it is narrow to say what you have, which many others say as well, that belief/acceptance of evolution should somehow be used as a litmus test for people's right and ability to have their own worldview regarding reproduction.

I've never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

There is certainly no counter-evidence for this in history and social darwinists, with their emphasis on extinction of less fit organisms to pave the way for an enhanced elite to survive and progress harbors a cynicism that others have a right to eschew, imo, regardless of how much evidence supports this way of looking at ecological history.

What? Who's talking about social darwinism besides you? For the love of Thor, man... Can you not go so far astray from the topic? Please!?!

 

 

I would say if you want to garner support for climate change mitigations the way to do that would be to frame it in positive terms.

One can frame requests for support however they wish. My point is that it is irrelevant how we frame requests for support when so many people reject it's basic truth, and that I despair a bit at our likelihood of future success when cannot even get people to agree upon such profoundly well established facts (such as with evolution and climate change).

 

 

 

Read the rest of his post. I found it to be a pretty well elaborated counter-malthusian position.

Well, that's all well and good, but as I've already elucidated, I was not expressing a Malthusian argument.

 

 

The Texas-area part was just the part I liked best because it was a concrete comparison, including noting that the density would not much exceed the density of many urban cities.

That's fine, but my response to that comment remains valid.

[Mr Skeptic]

There is certainly no counter-evidence for this in history and social darwinists, with their emphasis on extinction of less fit organisms to pave the way for an enhanced elite to survive and progress harbors a cynicism that others have a right to eschew, imo, regardless of how much evidence supports this way of looking at ecological history.

 

Social darwinism is a moral system and entirely unrelated to evolution. Moral systems are based on arbitrary values, and tell right and wrong -- not true and false.

 

Read the rest of his post. I found it to be a pretty well elaborated counter-malthusian position. The Texas-area part was just the part I liked best because it was a concrete comparison, including noting that the density would not much exceed the density of many urban cities.

 

Which is what makes it a worthless comparison, as cities are not self-sufficient in food, resources, nor energy.

[lemur]

I've never said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I wasn't trying to, so sorry. I was just expressing my general observation of how these ideologies work in practice.

 

What? Who's talking about social darwinism besides you? For the love of Thor, man... Can you not go so far astray from the topic? Please!?!

What other link is there between accepting evolution and responsibility regarding human population growth management?

 

One can frame requests for support however they wish. My point is that it is irrelevant how we frame requests for support when so many people reject it's basic truth, and that I despair a bit at our likelihood of future success when cannot even get people to agree upon such profoundly well established facts (such as with evolution and climate change).

The ideal of scientific value-free objectivism would assume that acceptance of truth precedes one's interest in the consequences. However, for many if not most people the acceptance or rejection of knowledge hinges on the consequences of accepting that knowledge. People simply ignore inconvenient truths and embrace those that they can deal with. It is pathetic, but what possible way is their to overcome such stubborn interest-driven mind-control?

 

Social darwinism is a moral system and entirely unrelated to evolution. Moral systems are based on arbitrary values, and tell right and wrong -- not true and false.

All "social Darwinism" means to me is applying evolutionist logic to human life and history. I know there are moral attitudes such as "let the weak die because it's good for the progress of the species" but that is just one branch, imo. Generally, I see social Darwinism as the general notion that human culture and biology evolves according to the logic of survival of the fittest. Generally, I think there is as much or more social-economic force against letting nature take its course as there is supporting it. Ironically, social darwinism is often used to validate the position of the wealthy, for example, even though wealth is used to insulate people against environmental challenges that could potentially drive individuals and families to extinction. I'm not for anyone going extinct but it is worth noting, imo, that survival-of-the-fittest type evolution is just one way among many in which human culture, economics, and biology evolve.

 

Which is what makes it a worthless comparison, as cities are not self-sufficient in food, resources, nor energy.

Maybe not presently, but if sustainable resource and labor self-sufficiency could be achieved at the urban level it would be quite interesting how much room for population growth existed just on Earth alone.

Edited October 7, 2010 by lemur

[cypress]

How does his argument only stand when voters have and use all available information? The more information that is available to the public, the less effect one piece of information will have. Of course voters don't make truly objective analysis of candidates and/or policies, but does anyone really? Democracy doesn't ensure that voters will make wise decisions, they never do, but it only ensures that they will have the complete freedom to make wise or stupid decisions without the influence of active coercion. Both parties in the USA are guilty of propaganda through misleading information. How is one liar better than another?

 

Well stated.

 

 

P.S. What was this thread about to begin with?

 

It is about a group of people who see candidates who supported their ideas and policies falling behind in the voter polls and their attempts to rationalize that is is because while a majority of voters share support for those ideas, they have been fooled, rather than that the majority now disagrees with those ideas and policies.

[Mr Skeptic]

What other link is there between accepting evolution and responsibility regarding human population growth management?

 

There's a huge correlation between denying evolution and denying global warming and other things that could limit population growth.

 

Maybe not presently, but if sustainable resource and labor self-sufficiency could be achieved at the urban level it would be quite interesting how much room for population growth existed just on Earth alone.

 

Sure, and if pigs could fly they'd make an interesting case study of porcine flight.

[lemur]

There's a huge correlation between denying evolution and denying global warming and other things that could limit population growth.

Oh, a statistical correlation? Well why didn't you just say so?

 

 

Sure, and if pigs could fly they'd make an interesting case study of porcine flight.

Analogies involving flying pigs are right up there with unexplained statistical correlations on my list of convincing arguments, but both are still far below comprehensible reason. Why wouldn't you think that self-sufficient small-scale environments and/or cities are possible?

 

 

 

[padren]

What other link is there between accepting evolution and responsibility regarding human population growth management?

 

...

 

The ideal of scientific value-free objectivism would assume that acceptance of truth precedes one's interest in the consequences. However, for many if not most people the acceptance or rejection of knowledge hinges on the consequences of accepting that knowledge. People simply ignore inconvenient truths and embrace those that they can deal with. It is pathetic, but what possible way is their to overcome such stubborn interest-driven mind-control?

Your first question is answered in your second statement. If you are willing to create a deep enough cognitive dissonance as to ignore all the facts surrounding evolution simply because you dislike the idea, what are the chances you can deal with real-world issues that run directly against such innate drives as expansive reproduction?

 

Your second question has a pretty simple answer too: learn how peer review works, and learn to explore sources. You have to admit - deciding what you want to believe out of convenience is not without severe hazards. We've gotten over that for the most part in industry - no one builds planes that ignore turbulence, or microchips that ignore heat.

 

All "social Darwinism" means to me is applying evolutionist logic to human life and history.

How does this differ from "applying logic to human life and history" in any way? Isn't such a definition as moot as saying "social bipedalism" is applying "humans have two feet theory" logic to human life and history?

 

I know there are moral attitudes such as "let the weak die because it's good for the progress of the species" but that is just one branch, imo. Generally, I see social Darwinism as the general notion that human culture and biology evolves according to the logic of survival of the fittest. Generally, I think there is as much or more social-economic force against letting nature take its course as there is supporting it. Ironically, social darwinism is often used to validate the position of the wealthy, for example, even though wealth is used to insulate people against environmental challenges that could potentially drive individuals and families to extinction. I'm not for anyone going extinct but it is worth noting, imo, that survival-of-the-fittest type evolution is just one way among many in which human culture, economics, and biology evolve.

Do you know what survival-of-the-fittest means? It doesn't mean toughest, and even a peacock evolves based on the survival-of-the-fittest model. A horribly inefficient display of feathers allows a male peacock to overcome one of the most difficult factors in it's environment - getting female peacocks in the mood.

 

It really doesn't get more basic than the ability to reproduce. Any variation that allows a biological entity to reproduce more is considered "more fit" regardless of whether that is achieved by social interdependence, crazy feathers, or even getting eaten.

 

How, other than through evolution, does biology evolve? I am curious because I do want to try and understand what you are describing here.

 

Maybe not presently, but if sustainable resource and labor self-sufficiency could be achieved at the urban level it would be quite interesting how much room for population growth existed just on Earth alone.

These unknown solutions would be great - but is it really worth just letting the "resource consumption" line-chart and the "technological solutions" line-chart run amok on the graph in a game of global chicken? It seems horribly irresponsible and dangerous to me.

[lemur]

Your first question is answered in your second statement. If you are willing to create a deep enough cognitive dissonance as to ignore all the facts surrounding evolution simply because you dislike the idea, what are the chances you can deal with real-world issues that run directly against such innate drives as expansive reproduction?

 

Your second question has a pretty simple answer too: learn how peer review works, and learn to explore sources. You have to admit - deciding what you want to believe out of convenience is not without severe hazards. We've gotten over that for the most part in industry - no one builds planes that ignore turbulence, or microchips that ignore heat.

 

There is authoritarian science, in which people submit to the authority of others as to what is true/false, valid/invalid. There is democratic science in which people subject knowledge to their own tests of reason and validity. Not only does politics fall outside of the regulatory frameworks of authoritarian science, it even falls outside of democratic science because people don't ultimately HAVE TO assent to reason. If they did, free market capitalism would look a lot different than it has evolved. I believe what you are advocating is called technocracy, but it's been a while since I've heard or used that term so I may be off with its meaning.

 

How, other than through evolution, does biology evolve? I am curious because I do want to try and understand what you are describing here.

I explained to you how humans use technology, wealth, and other social organization to insulate some people against tests of nature while exposing others. Those who are insulated may reproduce, and thus their traits may be carried forth and evolve, along with their culture, but that is not because they survived trials. It is because they protected themselves against having to endure such trials in the first place. What's more, they recruit others into their cultures of insulation causing those people to lose cultural skills that allow them to survive directly from nature, because such culture is considered 'primitive.'

 

 

These unknown solutions would be great - but is it really worth just letting the "resource consumption" line-chart and the "technological solutions" line-chart run amok on the graph in a game of global chicken? It seems horribly irresponsible and dangerous to me.

What are you talking about here?

Edited October 8, 2010 by lemur

[padren]

There is authoritarian science, in which people submit to the authority of others as to what is true/false, valid/invalid. There is democratic science in which people subject knowledge to their own tests of reason and validity. Not only does politics fall outside of the regulatory frameworks of authoritarian science, it even falls outside of democratic science because people don't ultimately HAVE TO assent to reason. If they did, free market capitalism would look a lot different than it has evolved. I believe what you are advocating is called technocracy, but it's been a while since I've heard or used that term so I may be off with its meaning.

What is this authoritarian science? I understand if you choose to ignore the growing relevance of scientific understanding in the daily world you may be forced to use non-scientific standards to make up your mind (ie, appeal to authority, etc) but science follows evidence, pure and simple. People sometimes produce biased studies that are ignored to a degree due to a cultural bias, but anyone can challenge that easily and demonstrate factually that the bias is incorrect.

 

People HAVE TO assent to the harsh realities of their environment, and reason is the only long-term viable means of dealing with those realities.

 

I am not advocating a technocracy or anything really. I am saying that science is open to being challenged and if it is science then it always will be. The failure of people to equip themselves with the easily accessible knowledge to challenge scientific conclusions is not the fault of science, nor does it make science authoritarian.

I explained to you how humans use technology, wealth, and other social organization to insulate some people against tests of nature while exposing others. Those who are insulated may reproduce, and thus their traits may be carried forth and evolve, along with their culture, but that is not because they survived trials. It is because they protected themselves against having to endure such trials in the first place. What's more, they recruit others into their cultures of insulation causing those people to lose cultural skills that allow them to survive directly from nature, because such culture is considered 'primitive.'

You completely misunderstand how evolution works. You can't "avoid" the trials, the only trial is to reproduce. The environment has changed enough that social mastery is more important than environmental mastery of the elements. The fact that these people would not survive a "social collapse" into a preindustrial environment doesn't mean they "insulated" themselves from biological evolution, they just selected for an environmental niche that was unstable and will either adapt or cease to exist when it no longer exists.

 

This all happens within classical biological evolution based on survival-of-the-fittest, plain and simple.

What are you talking about here?

You suggest that through technology we can overcome the limitations we currently have that make overpopulation such an eminent concern. Our ability to use technology in this way is increasing in a manner that could be charted, just as the impending resource bottleneck can be graphed. You are suggesting the resource consumption graph will not fall into a critical bottleneck due to technological advances being realized before that happens.

 

This is like a game of chicken - staying on a dangerous course because you are betting the course will be clear before you collide with anything. This is not an optimal approach for something as drastic and globally impacting as population and resource management, the risks are pretty high and even more so are the liabilities.

[lemur]

What is this authoritarian science? I understand if you choose to ignore the growing relevance of scientific understanding in the daily world you may be forced to use non-scientific standards to make up your mind (ie, appeal to authority, etc) but science follows evidence, pure and simple. People sometimes produce biased studies that are ignored to a degree due to a cultural bias, but anyone can challenge that easily and demonstrate factually that the bias is incorrect.

Not really. Some science is designed with a level of complexity that insulates it against critique except in its own terms. Then, by assenting to those terms the critic automatically must accept the paradigmatic basis of the theory. I'm afraid that most large scale systems approaches like evolution, global climate, macro-history, etc. work like that. We can argue until we're both blue in the face about the overall validity of any of these "sciences" but that's exactly the problem. They explain a scale that is too large to ever be directly observed so the discussions go on endlessly.

 

People HAVE TO assent to the harsh realities of their environment, and reason is the only long-term viable means of dealing with those realities.

Believe me, I wish they would. And eventually they probably will as a result of necessity. But in the mean time they don't have to and most surely they don't.

 

I am not advocating a technocracy or anything really. I am saying that science is open to being challenged and if it is science then it always will be. The failure of people to equip themselves with the easily accessible knowledge to challenge scientific conclusions is not the fault of science, nor does it make science authoritarian.

I distinguish between authoritarian and democratic approaches to science. Democratic approaches plead their case on appeals to reason. Authoritarian science insists on its bases and conclusions with regard to the prestige and numbers of references and concurrence. In authoritarian science, the reviewers, leading experts, and/or disciplinary norms are sufficient cause to accept the validity of a theory or research.

 

You completely misunderstand how evolution works. You can't "avoid" the trials, the only trial is to reproduce. The environment has changed enough that social mastery is more important than environmental mastery of the elements. The fact that these people would not survive a "social collapse" into a preindustrial environment doesn't mean they "insulated" themselves from biological evolution, they just selected for an environmental niche that was unstable and will either adapt or cease to exist when it no longer exists.

By this logic, there is nothing that is not natural selection. If nothing isn't natural selection, then everything is natural selection and you have a tautology.

 

You suggest that through technology we can overcome the limitations we currently have that make overpopulation such an eminent concern. Our ability to use technology in this way is increasing in a manner that could be charted, just as the impending resource bottleneck can be graphed. You are suggesting the resource consumption graph will not fall into a critical bottleneck due to technological advances being realized before that happens.

No, resource limitations could certainly create impetuses for various kinds of change. However, I don't see humanity or nature as a unified whole. Therefore, I don't think that any central top-down control of any of this is warranted, let alone possible. Ultimately, however, factions will compete for resources and it will most likely be those with the power not to evolve that restrict access to resources for those that want to. Eventually, however, even those with the power to avoid adapting will encounter resource scarcity and have to adapt or further decimate. As cynical as this makes me, I maintain hope that foresight will result in conservation and technological developments that will prevent the need for repressive population interventions.

 

This is like a game of chicken - staying on a dangerous course because you are betting the course will be clear before you collide with anything. This is not an optimal approach for something as drastic and globally impacting as population and resource management, the risks are pretty high and even more so are the liabilities.

Maybe, but it's a very old game. People multiply and then fight over territory. Technologists and social engineers try to make the progress happen less violently, but it's always an uphill battle. Personally, I prefer to criticize waste and destruction and hope for efficiency of resource utilization that allows as much room for individual reproductive choices as possible. Obviously there are always moments when the 'surplus' population conflicts and destroys itself. This could be through killing or reproductive control. Still, I hope for advances that prevent the necessity of either.

 

 

 

 

[padren]

Not really. Some science is designed with a level of complexity that insulates it against critique except in its own terms. Then, by assenting to those terms the critic automatically must accept the paradigmatic basis of the theory. I'm afraid that most large scale systems approaches like evolution, global climate, macro-history, etc. work like that. We can argue until we're both blue in the face about the overall validity of any of these "sciences" but that's exactly the problem. They explain a scale that is too large to ever be directly observed so the discussions go on endlessly.

When you say critique "except in its own terms" what do you mean? Should I be able to critique a scientific conclusion regarding the composition of Titan's atmosphere on the basis that I really like bananas? If I am going to critique something, I'm going to have to have a point about which I disagree, and the point I disagree about is going to have to have a rational argument. For that, I'm gong to have to understand the premise I am arguing against.

 

The scale really isn't a factor I'm afraid - if you point out a flaw, that flaw unravels the premise. You don't have to be anyone special to do so, but you do need to understand what you are talking about.

 

Believe me, I wish they would. And eventually they probably will as a result of necessity. But in the mean time they don't have to and most surely they don't.

That doesn't mean we should live in the fantasy that such behavior is anything other than incredibly shortsighted, selfish, and dangerous.

I distinguish between authoritarian and democratic approaches to science. Democratic approaches plead their case on appeals to reason. Authoritarian science insists on its bases and conclusions with regard to the prestige and numbers of references and concurrence. In authoritarian science, the reviewers, leading experts, and/or disciplinary norms are sufficient cause to accept the validity of a theory or research.

What you don't seem to realize is that the "leading experts" have already done their very best to disprove and rip apart the conclusions, and the only conclusion that is drawn is that "the evidence clearly suggests [x] is true to the point it is effectively irrefutable without new contradictory evidence" and if there is any authority at all, it's in trusting that those who published their work has actually been vetted. Science is very competitive and just about every argument that could be made to scientifically challenge evolution has been made, and vetted, and found flawed as the evidence still points to evolution.

 

The reason none of those scientists are making millions off of publishing books that refute evolution, or refuting the the age of the world is because they have the discipline to actually find viable flaws and building a case before publishing such works. To date - they can't, and as such haven't. The only difference between authoritative and democratic sciences as you call them, is in how much of any given science you see. You look at part of one and see reasonable debate over an unsettled issue and call it democratic. You look at another and only see what has been established very robustly as a result of the very same types of debates you call democratic, but at a point in time that there isn't much debate on the premise left.

 

The reason you don't see challenges there isn't from bowing to an authority, it's because no one has any challenges that were robust enough to survive such debates.

 

By this logic, there is nothing that is not natural selection. If nothing isn't natural selection, then everything is natural selection and you have a tautology.

Any situation where you have self-replicating patterns that make near-perfect copies that the patterns will over generations result in self-replicating patterns that in some way take advantage of their environment in a manner that increases their viability. This is through the process of natural selection. It's an exceptionally simple process. We observe the phenomena in computer applications, in bacteria cultures, in our DNA and all the DNA we have found in nature, in viruses, and in extinct lifeforms. It's not a tautology and not everything is affected by natural selection - only anything that replicates.

 

Your DNA is just a pattern that mutated from an earlier pattern and on and on to the pattern that you, I and all the trees, plants and animals are based on. Your DNA happens to have a pattern that yields a high likelihood of replicating, and since your DNA doesn't tend to replicate asexually, your DNA has a high likelihood of replicating by combining with a compatible pattern. That pattern of DNA, may cause an entire human life to be born, complete with self awareness and abstract thought, but whether that DNA pattern's replicated derivative still exists in the world 5 generations later or not only depends on simple viability. Either it replicated or it didn't, and either it's offspring replicated or it didn't, etc. If creating a self aware animal to surround the DNA pattern happens to help viability - then there are more like that.

 

That's really it. If you choose not to reproduce, then that's a fair decision and a clear "risk" to the pattern's viability, but chances are the events in your life will not lead you to that decision. That is because you are based on a pattern that chose to reproduce, as did it's parent and it's parent on and on back to the primordial ooze. As reproducing patterns go, yours has a pretty high viability. Still, you could choose not to reproduce, and looking back 100,000 of years later sentience itself may be extinct because it caused too much niche specialization.

 

It's a very simple process, and natural selection is that pervasive.

 

No, resource limitations could certainly create impetuses for various kinds of change. However, I don't see humanity or nature as a unified whole. Therefore, I don't think that any central top-down control of any of this is warranted, let alone possible. Ultimately, however, factions will compete for resources and it will most likely be those with the power not to evolve that restrict access to resources for those that want to. Eventually, however, even those with the power to avoid adapting will encounter resource scarcity and have to adapt or further decimate. As cynical as this makes me, I maintain hope that foresight will result in conservation and technological developments that will prevent the need for repressive population interventions.

And the time for that foresight would be right now.

 

Making due with less resources, if done through the pressures created by their scarcity, will necessitate a great amount of suffering. We don't want to think about effects like natural selection or the implications for our evolution - it's a process that takes too long for it to matter in our scale of time and is better served by our own interests, which may not at all impact well on any given individual's evolutionary viability, like adoption does.

 

Maybe, but it's a very old game. People multiply and then fight over territory. Technologists and social engineers try to make the progress happen less violently, but it's always an uphill battle. Personally, I prefer to criticize waste and destruction and hope for efficiency of resource utilization that allows as much room for individual reproductive choices as possible. Obviously there are always moments when the 'surplus' population conflicts and destroys itself. This could be through killing or reproductive control. Still, I hope for advances that prevent the necessity of either.

I missunderstood you, I thought you were saying that technology would prevent suffering, not be the result of suffering.

 

That "old game" exists because those that played it well survived, reproduced, and we inherited it. It's understandable where it came from, but since we ended up with brains and self awareness we want more than to just improve on the same games - it doesn't matter what the impact is on evolution - we want to live peaceful lives and help others who are suffering enjoy their lives too. If we are going to exist for a minute on this planet as a self aware, and self managing species where we can be stable enough to not always go through these violent cycles it's going to take a lot of effort. That's what climatologists are doing, by studying these trends and trying to predict possible impacts that would cause suffering if not addressed. It's why we keep trying to reform our economic and foreign policies.