How would you write the perfect universe?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The problem here is how you value things. Value is only meaningful if humans exist. Humans are only 'destructive' in human terms.
Perfection is a human judgement too, so a universe without humans to judge it, cannot be perfect.

Humans are destructive in more than human terms, as shown by the fact Earth is in the 6th major extinction event and that caused 100% by humans. So our destructiveness is changing the ecology of the entire planet. Of course that doesn't change anything on other planets that may have life on it, perhaps Europa and Mars in the past.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Humans are destructive in more than human terms, as shown by the fact Earth is in the 6th major extinction event and that caused 100% by humans. So our destructiveness is changing the ecology of the entire planet. Of course that doesn't change anything on other planets that may have life on it, perhaps Europa and Mars in the past.

I disagree.
You only define 'extinction' as 'destructive' in human terms. Pluto couldn't care less about those Rhinos.
Your evaluation of biodiversity as 'good' is an entirely human thing. And you even selectively evaluate biodiversity. If humans dramatically increased the number of virus species on the planet, you would not call that good, nor consider the opposite destructive.
I say good riddance to the plague and measles.
There is no doubt that humans have changed the face of the planet. But they have brought about new species as well as eliminated old ones. Change is only destruction in the human mind.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree.
You only define 'extinction' as 'destructive' in human terms. Pluto couldn't care less about those Rhinos.
Your evaluation of biodiversity as 'good' is an entirely human thing. And you even selectively evaluate biodiversity. If humans dramatically increased the number of virus species on the planet, you would not call that good, nor consider ...[text shortened]... about new species as well as eliminated old ones. Change is only destruction in the human mind.

I already said whatever happens on Earth won't effect life elsewhere. I suppose I should restrict the extinction event to land animals and plants and ocean life, not virus life.
EARTH would certainly 'care' about extinction of Hippo's or elephants and such.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they are not.
Human beings are evolved game player experts.
The essential components of game theory are:
1. Selfishness may be the best strategy if there is no punishment for it.
2. If there is punishment for selfishness, cooperation may be better.
3. Discourage other people from being selfish.

[b]The human brain is essentially a reward mechan ...[text shortened]... e, but selfishness can still win out for individuals if there is insufficient punishment for it.

Can you please explain to me how working against each other and hence getting less than our share of the sum of our co-operation is the right way to be selfish?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I already said whatever happens on Earth won't effect life elsewhere. I suppose I should restrict the extinction event to land animals and plants and ocean life, not virus life.
EARTH would certainly 'care' about extinction of Hippo's or elephants and such.

I disagree. EARTH doesn't care. It is not a conscious being. You are applying your human-centric view point.
The very fact that you care about Hippos and not bacteria is very human centric.
I bet you aren't pleased that cockroaches have done very well in some countries due to humans.

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
Can you please explain to me how working against each other and hence getting less than our share of the sum of our co-operation is the right way to be selfish?

Lets say you have five people each producing $10 per day. They could share it equally and all have $10 per day, or a selfish person could take $5 dollars from the others and have $30 dollars. Clearly getting MORE than our FAIR share is possible. And if the others cannot do anything about it, or are persuaded to allow it, then the selfish one does better than if he wasn't so selfish. Sadly, humans are very susceptible to being persuaded either through force or other means, hence in the current world, a tiny fraction of the population holds the bulk of the wealth.

Which country do you live in? I am willing to bet you are not nearly as socialist as you are suggesting, and are not actually willing to share with the poor.

Originally posted by humy
I am strangely unaware of the existence of this false teaching and thus 'lie'. I for one haven't ever been taught, at least not explicitly, to be selfish (to be selfish because it gives me 'more' ); If anything, quite the opposite (but I don't pretend to be without selfishness)

I don't understand it either. Twitehead put forward some kind of 'game theory'. You might want to ask him. He understands it better than me.

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
I don't understand it either. Twitehead put forward some kind of 'game theory'. You might want to ask him. He understands it better than me.

Don't send people to me to explain something you said in your post before I even commented. I never said anything about people being taught a lie.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Don't send people to me to explain something you said in your post before I even commented. I never said anything about people being taught a lie.

How can you say people aren't taught to be selfish when you have just put forward a case for learning to be selfish by way of game theory??

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
How can you say people aren't taught to be selfish when you have just put forward a case for learning to be selfish by way of game theory??

I have put forward a case that we EVOLVED to have certain behaviours as a result of game theory. I said nothing whatsoever about being taught to be selfish, nor did I say anything about being taught lies. That was you. Own what you write and explain it to people when they ask, rather than trying to pin it on other people that have nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
Human beings are intrinsically good but have been led astray is all. It's all for a matter of course though. We simply need to know we're not going to get the Mick taken out of us for being nice.The human brain is essentially a reward mechanism. We do things because we get a pay-off. We are selfish because we have been taught that this gets us more ...[text shortened]... is a lie. There is a better way of working where we ALL get more and that's by working together.

Not as long as there are 30 pieces of Silver to be had..

Originally posted by twhitehead
I disagree. EARTH doesn't care. It is not a conscious being. You are applying your human-centric view point.
The very fact that you care about Hippos and not bacteria is very human centric.
I bet you aren't pleased that cockroaches have done very well in some countries due to humans.

Of course, that is why I put quotes around the word care. I don't think bacteria or viruses will have much of a problem with their existence due to mankind's mistakes in the climate. But biodiversity makes for a more robust life ecology than a weak version of biodiversity.
For instance, the diversity of DNA as the result of sexual reproduction makes for diversity by having billions of humans procreating and expanding the variations in DNA making it harder for viruses and bacteria to decimate populations like the plague that happened some thousand years ago in Europe, just saying it makes a more robust population whether you are human or hippo or worm.

I make the assumption life came about on Earth by way of quadrillions of 'experiments' where precursers of RNA and DNA happened along and may the best combination win. When the first cells happened I assume there was not much bio diversity since it was the first but gradually over generations of asexual reproduction diversity happened with mutations and such and when sexual reproduction happened biodiversity really took off. Any species now that has smaller and smaller populations like the way we are decimating elephants for instance by definition is reducing the genetic diversity of that species and that has deleterious effects on the whole food chain. Suppose we screw up so badly we make humans go extinct completely. It would be preceded by a lowered bio and genetic diversity across the entire animal and plant kingdom and after we are gone it could be millions of years before diversity recovers and of course life on Earth will be far different from what we now enjoy.

Ravens evolving to human intelligence, who knows what would happen after humans are gone?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have put forward a case that we EVOLVED to have certain behaviours as a result of game theory. I said nothing whatsoever about being taught to be selfish, nor did I say anything about being taught lies. That was you. Own what you write and explain it to people when they ask, rather than trying to pin it on other people that have nothing to do with it.

Hang on. Are you saying that game theory describes our behaviours or that we evolved behaviours as a result of game theory. Because the latter implies learnedness.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets say you have five people each producing $10 per day. They could share it equally and all have $10 per day, or a selfish person could take $5 dollars from the others and have $30 dollars. Clearly getting MORE than our FAIR share is possible. And if the others cannot do anything about it, or are persuaded to allow it, then the selfish one does better t ...[text shortened]... nearly as socialist as you are suggesting, and are not actually willing to share with the poor.

Let's say we have five people producing £10/day by being selfish and using game theory as a means of selfishness. Each person is also in the process of safeguarding their money and keeping an eye out for a less aware person to make a slip so that they can gain access to their share. How much could they earn if they all concentrated on the job instead?

edit. I'm frum Englund.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But biodiversity makes for a more robust life ecology than a weak version of biodiversity.

Actually evidence has shown that system shocks tend to lead to major new life forms and stability is stiffing.
But why is 'robustness' important anyway?

It would be preceded by a lowered bio and genetic diversity across the entire animal and plant kingdom and after we are gone it could be millions of years before diversity recovers and of course life on Earth will be far different from what we now enjoy.
But who cares about all that? Life will adapt and go on. Humans won't destroy life, and even if they did, the universe won't care. It can't. Neither will EARTH. Your caring for life is a human-centric point of view.