I write and speak about the history & philosophy of progress. Founder, Roots of Progress Institute. Host of the Progress Conference. Author, The Techno-Humanist Manifesto.
jasoncrawford
Karma: 8,065
Sure, we should certainly be active about shaping the course of progress.
In the Hornblower series of novels, at one point Captain Hornblower surrenders to the enemy during a naval battle. He is captured by the French, but later escapes. When he gets home, he’s put on trial for surrendering. They finally acquit him when it is revealed that he had lost something like half (maybe two-thirds?) of his crew—basically massive casualties. But surrendering was considered guilty until proven innocent.
This pairs well with Scott Alexander’s Kolmogorov Complicity And The Parable Of Lightning
Yes, they would not be made from mirror components!
Synthetic cells aren’t inherently dangerous if they’re not mirror cells (and aren’t dangerous pathogens of course).
Failure to detect other life in the universe is only really evidence against advanced intelligent civilizations, I think. The universe could easily be absolutely teeming with bacterial life.
Re “take steps to stop it”, I was replying to @Purplehermann
The asymmetric advantage of bacteria is that they can invade your body but not vice versa.
I think until recently, most scientists assumed that mirror bacteria would (a) not be able to replicate well in an environment without many matching-chirality nutrients, and/or (b) would be caught by the immune system. It’s only recently that a group of scientists got more concerned and did a more in-depth investigation of the question.
Yes, antibodies could adapt to mirror pathogens. The concern is that the system which generates antibodies wouldn’t be strongly triggered. The Science article says: “For example, experiments show that mirror proteins resist cleavage into peptides for antigen presentation and do not reliably trigger important adaptive immune responses such as the production of antibodies (11, 12).”
Given that mirror life hasn’t arisen independently on Earth in ~4B years, I don’t think we need to take any steps to stop it from doing so in the future. Either abiogenesis is extremely rare, or when new life does arise naturally, it is so weak that it is outcompeted by more evolved life.
I agree that this is a risk from any extraterrestrial life we might encounter.
I appreciate that! Would like to get back to them at some point…
I don’t intend to write something anodyne, and don’t think I am doing so. Let me know what you think once I’m at least a few chapters in.
Thanks, added a more prominent link
I don’t think that’s right. The world now is much better than the world when it was smaller, and I think that is closely related to population growth. So I think it is actually possible to conclude that more people are better.
Software/internet gives us much better ability to find.
Re competitors, the idea is that we’re not all competing for a single prize; we’re being sorted into niches. If there is 1 songwriter and 1 lyricist, they kind of have to work together. If there are 100 of each, then they can match with each other according to style and taste. That’s not 100x competition, it’s just much better matching.
That is a good point. Still, the fact that individual companies, for instance, develop layers of bureaucracy is not an argument against having a large economy. It’s an argument for having a lot of companies of different sizes, and in particular for making sure that market entry doesn’t become too difficult and that competition is always possible. And maybe at the governance level it is an argument for many smaller nations rather than one world government.
I feel that you’re only paying attention to the “more geniuses and researchers” part and ignoring the parts about market size, better matching, more niches?
Also “focus on it at the exclusion of everything else” is a strawman, I’m not advocating that of course. Certainly increasing intelligence would be good (although we don’t know how to do that yet!) Better education would be great and I am a strong advocate of that. Same for better scientific institutions, etc.
I think the positive externalities of one genius are much greater than the negative externalities of one idiot or jerk. A genius can create a breakthrough discovery or invention that elevates the entire human race. Hard for an idiot or jerk to do damage of equivalent magnitude.
Maybe a better argument is “what about more Hitlers or Stalins?” But I still think that looking at the overall history of humanity, it seems that the positives of people outweigh the negatives, or we wouldn’t even be here now.
First, this seems to be arguing against strawman. No one is advocating literally infinite growth forever, which is obviously impossible.
Second, the current reality is not exponential population growth. It is a decelerating population. The UN projections show world population likely leveling off around 10 or 11 billion people in in this century, and possibly even declining:
Even if we were to get back on an exponential population growth curve, the limits seem to me to be many orders of magnitude away. I don’t see why we would worry about them until we get much closer.
I still like this post. I worked some of this material into “The Progress Agenda” (the last essay in the series The Techno-Humanist Manifesto), and updated it a bit with some more quotes and citations.