Humans are often used as an example of an inner alignment failure, where evolution via natural selection optimizes for inclusive genetic fitness (IGF), and yet humans ended up pursuing goals other than maximizing IGF.
I’ve always thought this claim was a bit overstated. There are over 8 billion of us, and we basically dominate every ecosystem on land except for ones that we’ve deliberately set aside as parks, and are a major predator at sea that has over-fished numerous populations to collapse. We’ve caused a mass extinction and are causing the Anthropocene. As IGF goes, we’re the most successful species on the planet, by far: if we were much more IGF-successful, we’d be an x-risk to ourselves by ecosystem collapse. And that’s after all the contraception, pornography, haute cuisine, adoptions and myriad other nonadaptive behaviors we’ve shown. Imagine, for one moment, what the ecological results of the ‘god’ in your post actually succeeding would be!
Yes, we’re not perfectly aligned with IGF, outside our native habitat and circumstances. But even in our significant non-alignment, we’re incredibly successful. Evolution may not have achieved alignment with its goals, but it’s also not that far off.
The null hypothesis for why the growth rate of humans has slowed is simply that we’ve reached our new technological carrying capacity in some way. The pure exponential growth phase we experienced in the last hundred years is similar what happens when you introduce an invasive species to a new area. Huge explosion, and you end up with startlingly high population numbers, but they do eventually stabilise.
It’s of course more pleasant to live in that explosive growth phase, because that means there’s abundance to enjoy, but I think it’s foolish to think we can do that forever. Eventually you run out of atoms in the universe. It has to stop somewhere.
Yup, growth sooner or later plateaus. Especially since most of those atoms are hydrogen in stars. Still, there’s a great deal of room for growth in our solar system, with sufficient technology.
I’ve always thought this claim was a bit overstated. There are over 8 billion of us, and we basically dominate every ecosystem on land except for ones that we’ve deliberately set aside as parks, and are a major predator at sea that has over-fished numerous populations to collapse. We’ve caused a mass extinction and are causing the Anthropocene. As IGF goes, we’re the most successful species on the planet, by far: if we were much more IGF-successful, we’d be an x-risk to ourselves by ecosystem collapse. And that’s after all the contraception, pornography, haute cuisine, adoptions and myriad other nonadaptive behaviors we’ve shown. Imagine, for one moment, what the ecological results of the ‘god’ in your post actually succeeding would be!
Yes, we’re not perfectly aligned with IGF, outside our native habitat and circumstances. But even in our significant non-alignment, we’re incredibly successful. Evolution may not have achieved alignment with its goals, but it’s also not that far off.
The null hypothesis for why the growth rate of humans has slowed is simply that we’ve reached our new technological carrying capacity in some way. The pure exponential growth phase we experienced in the last hundred years is similar what happens when you introduce an invasive species to a new area. Huge explosion, and you end up with startlingly high population numbers, but they do eventually stabilise.
It’s of course more pleasant to live in that explosive growth phase, because that means there’s abundance to enjoy, but I think it’s foolish to think we can do that forever. Eventually you run out of atoms in the universe. It has to stop somewhere.
Yup, growth sooner or later plateaus. Especially since most of those atoms are hydrogen in stars. Still, there’s a great deal of room for growth in our solar system, with sufficient technology.