mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (05/01/86)
[heading towards net.origins because this has little to do with space] Jorge Stolfi writes: >> I don't believe it. The ability to breed more descendants than parents >> is a necessary precondition for natural selection to work (otherwise, >> the population will go to zero!). I think we can safely assume that >> any species produced by natural selection can exponentially increase >> its numbers until its local environment is filled. (Whether they will >> or not is another matter; the one intelligent species we can observe, >> ourselves, has.) [Paul Dietz] >I would not be so sure. Note that in many developed nations the birth rate >is falling, to the point that in some countries (W. Germany, if I am not >mistaken) the population is actually decreasing. Moreover, those countries >are generally trying hard to convince the Third World ones to reduce their >population growth, too. >The instinct to reproduce may be a logical consequence of natural >selection, but it is just that --- an instinct, not a goal that can be >justified by reason alone. There is no evidence that once a civilization >that becomes advanced enough to tinker with its own brain and senses will >still let that instinct to guide their future. In fact, our own behavior >makes me believe the opposite. Well, there are two things here. Being able to exponentially produce offspring is no great thing; what is important is what holds the rate in check. For almost all animals the controller is predation; in some ecosystems, we even see periodic explosions of population which are brought down by a corresponding overabundance of predators. In some large predators predation upon their own kind is an important factor. Now if one assumes that current trends are going to continue, the same effects will eventually control human population. We don't want it that way because we have tossed our instincts and decided what consitutes acceptable standards of living-- starvation isn't normally included. WHat's more important here is how little our behavior is instinctual. Even where there are bodily signals to advise us, they can almost always be overruled. This is an intimate component of our consciousness, and it's what makes it possible for the birth rate to be so radically differnt in different parts of the world. >Consider how that instinct is implemented in our own species. Our senses >are hard-wired to send our brain a particular sort of signal --- "pleasure" >--- when we engage in sexual activity. Parents get pleasure out of >nurturing, raising, and educating their children; grandparents get pleasure >out of their grandchildren; patriarchs get pleasure from watching their >clan grow; and so on. >The brain in turn is hard-wired so as to maximize pleasure; in fact, that >is the very definition of "pleasure". All other brain functions, including >intelligence, are merely devices to help the brain achieve this goal. >People don't spend their energies in sex and marriage and child-rearing >because they have concluded, through cold objective reasoning, that that is >the logical thing to do. They do it because they WANT to --- that is, >because doing so gives them pleasure. I do not accept any part of this reasoning. The definition of pleasure is the experience itself; there's no reason to expect that this is the only way such reinforcement must be constructed. Then there's the fallacy that wanting to do something is to be equated with its pleasurability. Various pathologies serve to disprove that, and I don't think I could support it in "normal" behavior either. And some people do do things for rational reasons; indeed, the ability to overrule gratification rationally has been consistently been demanded as part of maturity and responsible decision-making. >This hard-wired feedback loop is the necessary result of natural evolution, >of course. Species where this loop is defective simply cannot exist. >However, natural evolution does not guarantee that a species that has >survived in the past will continue to do so in the future. In fact, it is >quite possible that a trait that was responsible for a species past success >be the cause of its extinction. There are lots of examples of such >self-inflicted extinction; for instance, many of the first photosynthetic >species must have been wiped out when oxygen began to accumulate in the >atmosphere. THis is not quite true either; all that can be demostrated is that evolution HAPPENED to take the course that occured. Conceivably, different forms of behavioral modification could have been developed. >Well, I think the evidence is there to support the thesis that intelligence >itself is one such self-defeating trait. Note that any species acts so as >to maximise its PLEASURE --- not its numbers, its power, or its survival. >Again, this is not a theory, it is a tautology --- that is the very >definition of pleasure. And as soon as a species gets advanced enough to >tinker with its own brain and senses, it will inevitably try to >short-circuit the pleasure pathway by all possible means. Sooner or later >the species will have the power to choose between reproduction OR pleasure, >and inevitably it will choose the latter. It's not an either/or situation. In the first place, a sufficiently rational race has the behavioral ability to do things against their pleasurability. In the second place, one can conceive of auto-reinforcement without pleasure. Evolution has chosen to produce pleasure, but it's entirely possible that a different throw of the genetic dice might have produced a different system. >Birth control, porno movies, and varous other mechanical devices have >already enabled us to divert a lot of our energy from child-rearing to the >pursuit of pure sexual pleasure. I do not have to tell you how this >alternative has become popular. If human reproduction has not ceased >entirely, it is largely because there are still no effective substitutes >for the non-sexual pleasures of reproduction, such as the maternal/paternal >instinct (pets and teaching are still not as good as the real thing). >But that is only a matter of time. THe flip side of this, of course, is that these same devices allow rational people to control the population without having to override the mental pressures placed upon us by the reproductive system. So it's really a question of whether humanity can control its population rationally when given the opportunity. >In the same way, we use artificial flavors, sweeteners, and colorings >because they give us most of the pleasures of good food at a fraction of >the cost. Watching football on TV gives the pleasure of winning a tribal >war while slumped on a sofa. Even when we use a bright poster or a flower >pot to brighten an otherwise drab room, or turn on the music to cover up >the lack of conversation, or send flames to the net as a substitute for >normal social interaction, we are ultimately using technology to foil our >survival instincts, and thus walk little by little on the road to >extinction. It is also true that these same devices offer benefits that cannot always be achieved without them. And as for survival instincts, it's pretty damn clear that humans are endowed with precious little; there are plenty of cases where overruling the instincts, and beyond that, the emotions, is imperative for survival. >As if those hints of doom were not enough, the most effective >short-circuiting device is already being sold in the streets, and its >sucess seems unstoppable. Drugs (or direct electrical stimulation of the >brain) have the potential of causing pure, complete pleasure, completely >independent of all sensory input. If such a perfect drug becomes >available, it would be infinitely tempting, and by necessity it would be >instantly and permanently addictive. It is hard to see how a >technologically liberated civilization could avoid it indefinitely. Because we are a rational species, and we can see the destructive effects of such devices. This is one of the factors which controls the usage of such devices (the other, of course, being the destructive acts themselves). >In summary, I think the self-destruct hypothesis quite plausible solution >to Fermi's paradox. Well before a civilization is advanced enough to >colonize the galaxy, it will be able to get all the pleasure that they >could get from the real world by cheap, guaranteed, and totally artificial >means. Why look for adventure in outer space, if you can the same pleasure >out of a pill right now? Why work hard to allow your granchildren to >colonize the galaxy, if your portable brain zapper can make you believe you >have already done so? I'm not convinced. The same independence from instinct is what makes rational thought possible, and the history of alcohol abuse, among other things, indicates that the rational observation of drunkeness (among other factors) tends to control the incidence of drinking. I think Mr. Stolfi seriously underestimates just how detached we are from instinct; rationality makes it possible to overrule virtually every message the senses try to send to us, and even our emotions. Responsible human beings simply are not controlled by what is pleasurable; they have learned that they have to do things that are not pleasurable, but which are necessary. The same detachment which makes the pain-pleasure system useful to the mind is the system which makes it possbile to ignore those signals. THat which gives us our great destructive potential is what also provides our tremendous adaptability. C. Wingate