Hanson seems to argue that we’re in an overhang, where we’ve improved our conditions more rapidly than our biology can catch up. Though, eventually, the general tendency for strategies that reproduce more widely to dominate will inevitably lead to Malthusian conditions.
Where your post doesn’t map neatly to this is in how you’ve selected a case where artificial selection is at play. If humans stopped existing or stopped needing to farm chickens their population would collapse. Maybe to zero. Or maybe some of them could survive and adapt back toward their status quo ante.
That’s interesting, because you’ve suggested that their “state of nature” before humans was preferable to where they’ve ended up today. If humans went away, their conditions might improve, even if their population fell.
Given that, I think the scenarios you’re describing might be a special case of “entity that has become instrumental to another entity’s optimization function”.
A blunt analogy might be, humans use chickens as a source of energy and protein. Our economic system uses humans for energy production and supply chain maintenance.
Is an analogy like that what you had in mind?
If so, I think that analogy would be worth probing more deeply. Because if you take it at face value, you could almost argue that a “return to nature” à la Kaczynski could be rephrased as breaking free of a higher order optimizer. Which is a fun thought.
usize
Karma: 13
Could you elaborate on what you mean by “greater context”? By my reading, the story didn’t really hint at what the actual result of this “shockwave” is. The interpretation of happiness being carried out could be incredibly unfulfilling or lacking coherence.
If the “happiness” being implemented is functionally equivalent to oblivion then we don’t even need to wait around for a “hedonium shockwave”. We could just promote antinatalism.
Which is to say, I’m guessing you have some specific sort of “good” outcome in mind. What’s your vision for the other side of this scenario?