A “world government” and “unlimited growth” I can understand.
However:
Memes are not really a solution to Malthus’s dilemma. They are just a different type of substrate for inheritance. The world filling with memes might indeed prevent the world from filling up with DNA—but then you have the exact same Malthusian problem all over again with the new medium of inheritance.
The “Disease or Warfare” scenario apparently retains the essential undesirable element of Malthus’s scenario of resource limitation—namely the failure of much of the population to survive to reproduce. The standard of living for those that remain could be high, though.
Memes are not really a solution to Malthus’s dilemma. They are just a different type of substrate for inheritance. The world filling with memes might indeed prevent the world from filling up with DNA—but then you have the exact same Malthusian problem all over again with the new medium of inheritance.
But memes are not morally relevant entities. Who cares if they suffer from the Malthusian problem, as long as human beings can have a high standard of living? (I’m assuming a non-upload scenario here, in case there’s any confusion about that.)
The standard of living for those that remain could be high, though.
I would agree that some agents could improve their standard of living—even if resources are limited—by making use of an army of slaves, which they don’t care about the welfare of.
I don’t think that DNA has a monopoly on moral relevance, though. The idea that the inheritance medium is of significant moral import will probably be derided in the future as a kind of prejudice.
But memes are not morally relevant entities. Who cares if they suffer from the Malthusian problem, as long as human beings can have a high standard of living?
The world filling with memes might indeed prevent the world from filling up with DNA—but then you have the exact same Malthusian problem all over again with the new medium of inheritance.
I don’t see how the problem would arise. Genes replicate by increasing the number of people. Memes (of the kind we’d like) replicate by infecting existing people. So by diverting human efforts from genes to this kind of memes, we reduce population growth.
I don’t see how the problem would arise. Genes replicate by increasing the number of people. Memes (of the kind we’d like) replicate by infecting existing people. So by diverting human efforts from genes to this kind of memes, we reduce population growth.
Yes, we (might) reduce the growth of the human population. But then we get memes replicating on human substrate, which means that memes have a Malthusian problem—they reach replicate to subsistence level of “resources”, i.e. humans.
The second order problem is that memes that cause their substrate to reproduce more and pass the meme to children have a reproductive advantage for meme natural selection. Which, if big enough, can lead to a parallel Malthusian problem in both human and meme populations.
When non-DNA inheritance gets better at using the available resources, a likely result is more effective competition for resources with existing organisms—leaving many affected humans unemployed and dependent on alms from the government.
It is true that population growth would probably be reduced in this kind of scenario—since usually the government pays the unemployed just enough to exist on.
A “world government” and “unlimited growth” I can understand.
However:
Memes are not really a solution to Malthus’s dilemma. They are just a different type of substrate for inheritance. The world filling with memes might indeed prevent the world from filling up with DNA—but then you have the exact same Malthusian problem all over again with the new medium of inheritance.
The “Disease or Warfare” scenario apparently retains the essential undesirable element of Malthus’s scenario of resource limitation—namely the failure of much of the population to survive to reproduce. The standard of living for those that remain could be high, though.
But memes are not morally relevant entities. Who cares if they suffer from the Malthusian problem, as long as human beings can have a high standard of living? (I’m assuming a non-upload scenario here, in case there’s any confusion about that.)
Yes, that was the point.
I would agree that some agents could improve their standard of living—even if resources are limited—by making use of an army of slaves, which they don’t care about the welfare of.
I don’t think that DNA has a monopoly on moral relevance, though. The idea that the inheritance medium is of significant moral import will probably be derided in the future as a kind of prejudice.
Well, memes might care :-)
By the way, is there such a thing as a meta-meme?
I don’t see how the problem would arise. Genes replicate by increasing the number of people. Memes (of the kind we’d like) replicate by infecting existing people. So by diverting human efforts from genes to this kind of memes, we reduce population growth.
Yes, we (might) reduce the growth of the human population. But then we get memes replicating on human substrate, which means that memes have a Malthusian problem—they reach replicate to subsistence level of “resources”, i.e. humans.
The second order problem is that memes that cause their substrate to reproduce more and pass the meme to children have a reproductive advantage for meme natural selection. Which, if big enough, can lead to a parallel Malthusian problem in both human and meme populations.
When non-DNA inheritance gets better at using the available resources, a likely result is more effective competition for resources with existing organisms—leaving many affected humans unemployed and dependent on alms from the government.
It is true that population growth would probably be reduced in this kind of scenario—since usually the government pays the unemployed just enough to exist on.