[edanm]

I don't know if you've read the writings of Bostrom/Hanson. You are very wrong in terms of both their message, and their purposes.

They do not misunderstand evolution. In fact, considering they're both respected professors, you might want to give them some amount of "benefit of the doubt". If you're basing your position about them based on one article, you really should at least consider the fact that you're misunderstanding them.

As for what you say about evolution, I have a hard time with what you call "evolution", because your definition seems to include literally everything that ever can or will happen on earth. So let's put aside the word "evolution" and talk instead of what we actually think is going to happen.

Hanson/Bostrom etc. talk about the fact that humanity will be able to quickly and significantly change what we are, as in rewriting our genetic code, rewriting our software, and so on. (If you want to call this "part of evolution", that's fair, but beside the point I'm making).

They consider this a "rise" in terms of what we, right now, consider to be better or worse. If you'd tell me that in 10 years, humanity will be replaced by cockroaches, you're right that it doesn't matter to "evolution", but it is certainly something that I, as a human, consider to be a step down.

In similar ways, rewriting our genetic code or making other changes to humanity can be considered an advancement from humanity's point of view.

That's the kinds of things they are talking about, and the reason they use phrases like "steps up the ladder".

[lutusp]

> You are very wrong in terms of both their message, and their purposes.

They repeatedly refer to evolution's goals, but evolution has no goals. They are wrong, and I am citing the standard scientific references to evolutionary theory.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq....

Quote: "One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive"

The above flatly contradicts your sources, who argue that their version of evolution is progressive.

> In fact, considering they're both respected professors ...

While trying to engage in scientific debate, avoid this common logical error:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

> They consider this a "rise" in terms of what we, right now, consider to be better or worse.

But that's wrong -- we cannot possibly know what nature has in store for us in the future. And no evolutionary process, natural or unnatural, can or should be described as a "rise". When applied to human beings, this smacks of eugenics, of engineering the "defects" out of people. It assumes that we understand nature better than we do, or that we can outwit nature, or that we can implement eugenic projects without destroying society. We keep proving that we can't do that.

> In similar ways, rewriting our genetic code or making other changes to humanity can be considered an advancement from humanity's point of view.

So it is a eugenic proposal. All the worse for us. Eugenics suffers from many serious defects, one being that we can't outwit nature, another being that implementing eugenic plans inevitably falls apart for practical and political reasons.

Relating it to evolution is simply a way to give it a pseudoscientific gloss and put a respectable patina on a dangerous social idea.

[edanm]

"They repeatedly refer to evolution's goals, but evolution has no goals."

They're speaking metaphorically.

"The above flatly contradicts your sources, who argue that their version of evolution is progressive."

Like where? Where do they specifically say that?

"While trying to engage in scientific debate, avoid this common logical error:"

I wasn't arguing from authority. I did not say "they are authorities, believe what they say". I said that, since they are respected professors, you might want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Do you really believe that there is no chance that you are wrong and that you are misunderstanding them, and if the fact that they are both respected professors has zero relevance on whether you should at least try to see whether you might have misjudged them?

"But that's wrong -- we cannot possibly know what nature has in store for us in the future"

I'm just pointing out that you are now yourself talking as if "nature" had goals and purposes, exactly the behaviour you found troubling in their writings.

As for the rest of your post, I can't say I disagree with the facts, only with your opinions. Yes, we are discussing here things like changing people's genes, and yes, that means it is eugenics. No, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

More importantly to Bostrom's point, it doesn't matter what we think - people will start doing things like this in the (near?) future, we'd better be prepared for it.

[lutusp]

>> "They repeatedly refer to evolution's goals, but evolution has no goals."

> They're speaking metaphorically.

Metaphorically, evolution has no goals.

>> "The above flatly contradicts your sources, who argue that their version of evolution is progressive."

> Like where? Where do they specifically say that?

Read the thread, including another poster's representation of their views: "When Bostrom and others talk about humanity, they usually mean humanity and its extremely advanced descendants." This clearly represents a distillation of their philosophy.

And from the source:

Link: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/12/steps-up-the-ladder.ht...

Title: "Steps Up The Ladder"

Quote: "How far have we come, and how far might we go? Imagine this progress as climbing a ladder on the side of a tall building, where at each new floor we get ten times more capable."

Hey, it's the topic under discussion, introduced by another poster. It's New Age nonsense with no connection to reality or evolution.

> As for the rest of your post, I can't say I disagree with the facts, only with your opinions.

I didn't post any opinions -- this is a discussion of evolution, one you started. Evolution doesn't rely on opinions, it relies on evidence.

> ... the fact that they are both respected professors has zero relevance ...

Do you never discuss science with anyone, anywhere, ever? You just repeated another poster's earlier logical error. In science, authority counts for nothing -- evidence is the only issue. The greatest amount of scientific eminence is trumped by the smallest amount of scientific evidence.

> Yes, we are discussing here things like changing people's genes, and yes, that means it is eugenics. No, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

Then you haven't studied history or learned any of its most important lessons. A social discussion of genetic engineering of the human genotype based on microbiology, inevitably becomes a social discussion of genetic engineering based on killing all the "inferior" individuals.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Quote: "Throughout its recent history, eugenics has remained a controversial concept.[10] As a social movement, eugenics reached its greatest popularity in the early decades of the 20th century. At this point in time, eugenics was practiced around the world and was promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Many countries enacted[11] various eugenics policies and programmes, including: genetic screening, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and segregation of the mentally ill from the rest of the population), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, and genocide. Most of these policies were later regarded as coercive or restrictive, and now few jurisdictions implement policies that are explicitly labelled as eugenic or unequivocally eugenic in substance."

Any questions?