As other commenters have suggested, what is moral is not reducible to what is natural. This assumption, which underlies the entire post, is left totally un-addressed.
You are about as wrong as it is possible to be. The point of the post is that there is a parameter which goal-optimization provides a setting for, but which also has moral implications.
If I believed that what was natural was moral, there would be no issue. You would simply set that parameter in a way that is best for goal-seeking, and be done with it.
Why is the human designer of transhumanity suddenly free to choose a new moral chassis for his creation, and why should he care about the moral success of the transhumans? Shouldn’t he create a transhumanity that maximizes his own fitness?
Now you’re the one saying that what is natural is moral. See, as I said, that’s what the post is about. If what is natural is moral, then your comment would be the obvious conclusion.
You are about as wrong as it is possible to be. The point of the post is that there is a parameter which goal-optimization provides a setting for, but which also has moral implications.
If I believed that what was natural was moral, there would be no issue. You would simply set that parameter in a way that is best for goal-seeking, and be done with it.
Now you’re the one saying that what is natural is moral. See, as I said, that’s what the post is about. If what is natural is moral, then your comment would be the obvious conclusion.