The arguments laid out on the linked page are orthogonal to any questions of value or goodness.
The page’s arguments conclude that “life is trying to occupy all space, and to become master of the universe.” However, nothing is said as to what “life” will do with its mastery, and thus these arguments are unrelated to the question of why the future might be good, except insofar as most people would rank futures in which life is wiped out as not good.
I believe that it is fairly trivial to show that while evolution is in fact an optimization process, it is not optimizing for goodness. It is a pretty big jump from “evolution has an arrow” to ”...and it points where we want it to”. In fact, I believe that there is significant evidence that it does not point where we want. As evidence, I point to basically every group selection experiment ever.
I would also disagree that it is “already quite good”. While it is certainly not the worst that could be conceived of, there is significant room for improvement. However, the current standing of the universe is less relevant to the article (which I enjoyed, by the way) than that there is room for improvement according to the values that we as people have, which is obvious enough to me as to need no defense.
I also object to the use of the word benign in the comment, as it appears to be there simply to sneak in connotations. On the linked page, the word is used as a synonym for “capable of bearing life”, which can be applied to our universe without much controversy. However, when used in a sentence with the words “progressive” and “goodness”, it seems that “capable of bearing life” is not the intended definition, and even if it is, it is predictably not the one that a reader will immediately reach for.
I believe that it is fairly trivial to show that while evolution is in fact an optimization process, it is not optimizing for goodness. It is a pretty big jump from “evolution has an arrow” to ”...and it points where we want it to”. In fact, I believe that there is significant evidence that it does not point where we want. As evidence, I point to basically every group selection experiment ever.
The equivalent of your proposal in the language of kin selection is for organisms to become more closely related. That’s happening in humans, since humans have come to possess more and more shared memes—allowing cultural kin selection to produce cooperation between them on increasingly-larger scales. Once you properly account for cultural evolution things do seem to be reasonably on track. Other mechanisms that produce cooperaation—such as reciprocity, trade and reputations—are also going global. Essentially, Peter Kropotkin was correct.
I also object to the use of the word benign in the comment, as it appears to be there simply to sneak in connotations.
Hmm. I essentially mean: not being bombarded at a high frequency with meteories. I’m obliquely referencing Buckminster Fuller’s book Approaching the Benign Environment.
Yes, there are definitely other possible explanations, though the ones I gave seem most common. But yours seems to beg the question—why does evolution lead to more goodness over time?
We don’t need to understand why evolution leads to goodness to see that it does so—and predict that it will continue to do so. However, scientists do have some understanding of why. Game theory, adaptation and synergy are some of the factors involved. Also a sufficiently-low frequency of meteorite strikes and cosmic rays is clearly an important factor.
3) Evolution in our (benign) universe is progressive, leads to more goodness over time, and is already quite good.
The arguments laid out on the linked page are orthogonal to any questions of value or goodness.
The page’s arguments conclude that “life is trying to occupy all space, and to become master of the universe.” However, nothing is said as to what “life” will do with its mastery, and thus these arguments are unrelated to the question of why the future might be good, except insofar as most people would rank futures in which life is wiped out as not good.
I believe that it is fairly trivial to show that while evolution is in fact an optimization process, it is not optimizing for goodness. It is a pretty big jump from “evolution has an arrow” to ”...and it points where we want it to”. In fact, I believe that there is significant evidence that it does not point where we want. As evidence, I point to basically every group selection experiment ever.
I would also disagree that it is “already quite good”. While it is certainly not the worst that could be conceived of, there is significant room for improvement. However, the current standing of the universe is less relevant to the article (which I enjoyed, by the way) than that there is room for improvement according to the values that we as people have, which is obvious enough to me as to need no defense.
I also object to the use of the word benign in the comment, as it appears to be there simply to sneak in connotations. On the linked page, the word is used as a synonym for “capable of bearing life”, which can be applied to our universe without much controversy. However, when used in a sentence with the words “progressive” and “goodness”, it seems that “capable of bearing life” is not the intended definition, and even if it is, it is predictably not the one that a reader will immediately reach for.
That page is pretty silly. These days, most of the scientists involved agree that kin selection and group selection are equivalent—and cover the same set of phenomena.
The equivalent of your proposal in the language of kin selection is for organisms to become more closely related. That’s happening in humans, since humans have come to possess more and more shared memes—allowing cultural kin selection to produce cooperation between them on increasingly-larger scales. Once you properly account for cultural evolution things do seem to be reasonably on track. Other mechanisms that produce cooperaation—such as reciprocity, trade and reputations—are also going global. Essentially, Peter Kropotkin was correct.
Hmm. I essentially mean: not being bombarded at a high frequency with meteories. I’m obliquely referencing Buckminster Fuller’s book Approaching the Benign Environment.
Yes, there are definitely other possible explanations, though the ones I gave seem most common. But yours seems to beg the question—why does evolution lead to more goodness over time?
I could be wrong, but I don’t think timtyler is claiming that this is a good argument but only that this is an argument that people use.
Evolutionary progress gets thumbs-up from me. The page I originally cited was my own.
We don’t need to understand why evolution leads to goodness to see that it does so—and predict that it will continue to do so. However, scientists do have some understanding of why. Game theory, adaptation and synergy are some of the factors involved. Also a sufficiently-low frequency of meteorite strikes and cosmic rays is clearly an important factor.