Technological Singularity

James Sharman james at exaflop.demon.co.uk
Fri Jun 5 08:59:17 EST 1998


ak at muc.de wrote in message ...
>"James Sharman" <james at exaflop.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> It is not necisary for the superiour to kill the inferior.  The basic
>> premise of natural selection tells as that the superiour will eventualy
>> replace the inferior. Even an incredibly small increase in proberbility
of
>> servival of the superiour humans will (given enough generations)
eventualy
>> result in the replacement of 'homo-inferious'
>
>But the 'homo-inferious' can still catch on by simply having more children.
>I think he has good chances.
>
>-A.

Not really, the possiblity ofincreased ofspring is open to the superior
species as much as it is to the inferior and it is not necisarily an
advantage to have more of you,  it creates competition for resources,
presuming the superior are in some manner more capable of competing for
resources then a 'devide and conqer' approch from the lesser may actualy
hasten their demise.

Going back to the original issue of actual genocide it is also quite
worrying if we look at human history. Presuming these genetic supermen
retain at least a limited psycological similarity then a more direct
conflict is possible. History teaches us that having humans around who just
belive they are superior to us is very dangerous,  let alone if they actualy
were superior.

On a completely different track,  who is to say that the eventual
replacement of humanity with an enhanced version is not the way to go. It
may be possible to view this development as a bizzar twist on evolution. You
should also rememeber that these supermen will be our decendants and it does
not take to much for us to wish the best for the future.

James.

thag: ook,  look at them with clubs and fire
thog: They replacing us,  must put a stop to it.






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list