|
|
|
|
|
by Nasrudith
2537 days ago
|
|
That sounds a bit naturalist fallacy - just because it is selected for doesn't mean it is ideal. Legacy is perfectly capable of leaving maladaption. The inertia can and has worked against them too. For instance it could have been from the history of human group hunting, warfare that sort of cohesion served better than intellectual ability in the short term. But under modern conditions the utility would invert - muscle power is basically worthless compared to machines for labor for one. Not falling for the stupid delusions of the day can give a lead of centuries. Besides shouldn't proper deep thinkers should be able to weigh risks of ideologies? The unthinking masses would continue along with disaster while critical thinkere would say "stop!". |
|
When we see things in nature, it's always possible that they serve a purpose. Adaptive traits are selected for. It's also possible they aren't.
It seems there are three possibilities:
> Besides shouldn't proper deep thinkers should be able to weigh risks of ideologies?Shouldn't a good programmer be able to look at a program and its input and determine with 100% certainty whether or not the program will halt?
It might seem so but of course we know from computer science that they [in the general case] cannot. Deep thinking and intelligence alone aren't enough to predict all of the possible routes through a complex problem space.
Some things just have to be tried in order to be understood. And because of that it's probably safe to stick with things that have been tried before over things that seem reasonable to some smart but not all knowing person but that haven't been tried before.
Aren't most mutations harmful afterall?