Originally posted by Christopher Albon
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.

No, the latter does not imply learnedness.

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
How much could they earn if they all concentrated on the job instead?

It depends on the situation, obviously.
The point remains, that if someone succeeds in getting money off his fellows, he will be better off than if he didn't.

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
edit. I'm frum Englund.

So are you aware that most of your wealth is a result of the UK's colonisation and forcible theft of goods from other nations? Are you going to give any of it back?
Are you giving away your wealth to the worlds poorest, or are you going to contradict what you are saying here?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, the latter does not imply learnedness.

So game theory describes our evolution? I think you need to concentrate on your wording. And what makes us unique from, let's say wolves, that made us evolved differently?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It depends on the situation, obviously.
The point remains, that if someone succeeds in getting money off his fellows, he will be better off than if he didn't.

The situation in context here being the knowledge that working together will get said party more. How will a person be better of in a world that isn't functioning to the best of it's abilities?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So are you aware that most of your wealth is a result of the UK's colonisation and forcible theft of goods from other nations? Are you going to give any of it back?
Are you giving away your wealth to the worlds poorest, or are you going to contradict what you are saying here?

Yes.

edit. Oh wait. It's the other thing. No. Our wealth isn't described in monetary terms but we are more than willing to share.

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
So game theory describes our evolution?

We evolved in a setting where game theory applies.

I think you need to concentrate on your wording.
I think you need to concentrate on your reading.

And what makes us unique from, let's say wolves, that made us evolved differently?
Different social strategies. Its a pretty big topic. But game theory applies to both species and a balance between selfishness and cooperation can readily be seen in both species.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We evolved in a setting where game theory applies.

[b]I think you need to concentrate on your wording.
I think you need to concentrate on your reading.

And what makes us unique from, let's say wolves, that made us evolved differently?
Different social strategies. Its a pretty big topic. But game theory applies to both species and a balance between selfishness and cooperation can readily be seen in both species.[/b]

We also evolved in a setting where beauty is the main driving force for evolutionary selection. What you're describing using game theory is not beauty. It's the opposite.

Originally posted by Christopher Albon
We also evolved in a setting where beauty is the main driving force for evolutionary selection.

No, we did not.

What you're describing using game theory is not beauty. It's the opposite.
No, it is not.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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?

[b] 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 l ...[text shortened]... won't care. It can't. Neither will EARTH. Your caring for life is a human-centric point of view.

Did you notice I put care in quotes? Anyway, since we are both humans it is in the interest of humans not to screw up so badly we off ourselves and probably half the life forms on the planet.

Of course life will go on, maybe it takes ten million years for our level of intelligence to come around but it is not certain it will happen ever again. It could be we are just a fluke and the planet will go on till the sun burns it out with no further high intelligence, of course dolphins, elephants and the high primates are close so maybe it will evolve again in the absence of humans.

Can you imagine, say 10 million years from now some intelligent culture starts the science of archaeology and finds remains of OUR stuff. What would the conclude?

Obviously, in say a million years the pyramids will be at least covered in sand if not completely dissolved and most other structures but they should find artificial works of some kind, something obviously not natural.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Did you notice I put care in quotes?

Does that change anything? It remains the case that the supposedly negative effects of man on the earth are only negative from mans perspective. If we were no longer here, it wouldn't be negative any more.

Anyway, since we are both humans it is in the interest of humans not to screw up so badly we off ourselves and probably half the life forms on the planet.
Sure it is. But it remains the case that if we were NOT here, then it is no longer in our interest to not screw up.

.... but they should find artificial works of some kind, something obviously not natural.
Like a gif hidden in the DNA of bacteria.
https://singularityhub.com/2017/07/16/a-living-hard-drive-this-gif-was-stored-in-the-dna-of-bacteria/

Originally posted by twhitehead
Does that change anything? It remains the case that the supposedly negative effects of man on the earth are only negative from mans perspective. If we were no longer here, it wouldn't be negative any more.

[b]Anyway, since we are both humans it is in the interest of humans not to screw up so badly we off ourselves and probably half the life forms on th ...[text shortened]... ://singularityhub.com/2017/07/16/a-living-hard-drive-this-gif-was-stored-in-the-dna-of-bacteria/

Sure, assuming said DNA would still be around 10 mil from now. Anyway, if mankind were made extinct, the fact our influence on the climate would be over means a self correcting curve and the climate at least would get back to where it was pre industrial, maybe it would take thousands of years but so what, that is still a blink of the eye in geological terms.

The recovery of the life on Earth would take far longer. If elephants go extinct, for instance, how long would it take for some kind of replacement? Giraffes? Hippos?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Anyway, if mankind were made extinct, the fact our influence on the climate would be over means a self correcting curve and the climate at least would get back to where it was pre industrial, maybe it would take thousands of years but so what, that is still a blink of the eye in geological terms.

Actually there is no good reason to believe the climate is self correcting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

As the northern ice melts, more C02 is released and the land is less reflective resulting in more and more warming. There is nothing causing more cooling.

The recovery of the life on Earth would take far longer. If elephants go extinct, for instance, how long would it take for some kind of replacement? Giraffes? Hippos?
Elephants don't need a replacement. Not every animal occupies a niche to be filled.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, we did not.

[b]What you're describing using game theory is not beauty. It's the opposite.
No, it is not.[/b]

So why is dem birds pretty like?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually there is no good reason to believe the climate is self correcting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_greenhouse_effect

As the northern ice melts, more C02 is released and the land is less reflective resulting in more and more warming. There is nothing causing more cooling.

[b]The recovery of the life on Earth would take far longer. If ...[text shortened]... Hippos?
Elephants don't need a replacement. Not every animal occupies a niche to be filled.[/b]

That seems short sighted, Elephants don't need replacing. Every animal does a job in the eco system and the loss of one species effects all of them.