[elemenohpee]

I think this misses the point of the article and these types of discussions in general. To me, the value of this perspective is that it takes the ego out of this self-directed narrative, and places it in the proper context as a local manifestation of a long running evolutionary process. To see people not as god-like conjurers but as products of whimsical evolutionary circumstance is, I think, the proper seed for developing a deep and universal compassion, the type of compassion that renders the answer to your question of "where to assist" quite obvious, and exposes the goal of creating people with this "willing to fail" attribute as hopelessly naive.

The ability to "fail happily" is less an intrinsic trait as it is having support structures in place that allow for an individual to take bold action without jeopardizing their ability to eat or provide for their family. In this way it is much easier for a kid from a rich family to take the kind of risks that in rare cases lead to great success than it is for a kid from a poor family to do the same. No one can deny that the successes lead to the creation of great social wealth, and so it is in our species' interest to remove the various pressures that keep people locked into safe but stagnant pathways, and allow everyone to take the kinds of chances that produce new mutations for evolution to select from.

Note that I don't think the state should be providing this safety net, this is more of an abstract observation. I have my own ideas on how I think it should be implemented, but I don't think it's particularly relevant to the point here. I'm not particularly convinced by arguments about incentives, although I realize that may be the main objection people have and I think that does have a place in the debate.

[DanielBMarkham]

I'm really interested in how you can take agency out of evolution, since agency evolved as a survival trait. I don't think you have to focus on ego, but neither can you toss it out. That's what makes it such an interesting conversation. It's not all ego, and it's not all environment. It's the mix.

I understand the desire to reduce this to a simpler model where you can control all the levers. But quite frankly I can't see such a model being created. You have to ask yourself whether you want to analyze and manipulate the world you live in, or create another world where problems are solved in a much more direct and simple manner.

Sorry, not trying to troll or start a fight. I just found you comment diametrically opposite of mine and that was fascinating to me.

[elemenohpee]

No, no, I'm all about the discussion. Shit, this is more to test my ideas than to assert any sort of truth.

Maybe another question will get us closer to the root of the issue:

Whose agency are we talking about, the individual's, or the genes'?

[DanielBMarkham]

Yeah but that's the point. Nobody knows what the genes contribute to start with.

If you want to argue determinism, that we are all products of genes and external factors, and that by manipulating genes and external factors we can directly control the evolution of society, that we can remove ego from the equation, you have to be able to explain the causality of how all this determinism works. Correlation is not causality!

So sure, if we somehow had a God's Eye view of the world of man, his genes, social interactions, inbred habits and those attributes and everything else which evolves into a successful startup, then we could begin a discussion around which of those we could change that might reach our goal (A knowledge of the interaction of these elements would also be needed)

In this scenario we're all just Sims playing in somebody's game. BTW, this is a completely rational view, and one day we may arrive there (Or we may already be there for some greater being than us!)

But for all intents and purposes, especially for the goals of our discussion, we are not there yet.

Determinism has a seductive siren call. It's just not a very pragmatic stance, at least not where we are today.

[elemenohpee]

It's quite simple to explain the causality. When you break everything down it eventually comes down to physics (ok so it's not that simple to explain, but it's conceptually simple).

However I vehemently deny that we can manipulate genes to control the evolution of society. At least in any positive direction, manipulating genes would certainly have some effect on our evolution, but I would argue that our limited knowledge would make this far more likely to be detrimental. This returns to my original point, removing ego from the equation. Evolution has proceeded over the last 4 billion years to create remarkable beings, all without our guidance. This blind progression is in fact the strength of the process, since shifting selective pressures are inherently unknowable, and any attempt to consciously control genes in any direction would lead to a reduction in biodiversity and overall fitness.

This then extends to memetic evolution. When mutations are made more rare (by channeling people into stagnant status quo sustaining pathways), and selected against too strongly (by punishing heterodox positions with starvation), memetic diversity is reduced and the risk of succumbing to new selection pressures rises. Any attempt to preferentially allocate resources is in this way self-sustaining (read incestual), and commits the same egotistical error as trying to manipulate genetics. Absent the knowledge (and the hope of ever attaining the knowledge) of what genes and memes will be long-term beneficial, the only reasonable course of action to my mind is the sort of universal support and equality of economic "opportunity" that I mention.