Re:Protect the last of the wild
by galangalalgol on Thursday November 01, 2018 @09:53AM
(#18353854)
Natural selection is a greedy algorithm. Being forward thinking or altruistic rarely produces more surviving progeny over the short term.
I guess in the case of humans we have partly outpaced natural selection - nature hasn't had time to optimise for the reality we are creating, it's too slow. Short term impulses which have worked great (until now) still govern our behaviour.
It's not altruism to try to avert long term disaster beyond your own life span. It's in your own interest to ensure your progeny survives - even several generations in the future they still carry your genes. But I don't know if inbuilt mechanisms for this exist in evolution.
I'd like to think self-inflicted extinction isn't a likely outcome of evolution - but maybe it is once a certain species dominates.
Re:Protect the last of the wild
by yeswecould on Thursday November 01, 2018 @04:52PM
(#18358334)
All of the things that humans have done, which you are referring to - can be traced back to one thing - cheap energy - in the form of OIL.
It is curious how carbon based life that existed in the past (dead plants and animals in the form of oil) is the catalyst for carbon based life wiping itself out in the future.
I wonder if this ultimately also happens on other planets with carbon based life (if they exist) - a short period of hyper growth once life learns how to unlock energy from the past, followed by extinction.
Beyond being critical to the survival of deeply linked ecosystems, and ultimately ourselves, it's just really stupid to destroy products of millions of years of R&D before we've even begun to unlock their potential. The amount of energy and computation that has gone into that evolution is super valuable and a couple of generations are trading it for profits lasting a blink of an eye.
In general, I find it super strange that multi-generational thinking/optimisation isn't more deeply ingrained in our behaviour as a species.