Subject: [extropy-chat] Re: [SOCIO] Cooperation and diversity

From: Jef Allbright <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 06:24:40 -0700

Dirk Bruere wrote:

> Jef Allbright wrote:
>
>> Dirk Bruere wrote:
>>
>>> Jef Allbright wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rather, we can expect *increased* diversity, but within an 
>>>> increasingly aware cultural framework that recognizes and promotes 
>>>> the enhanced value of cooperative interaction among diverse agents.
>>>>
>>> I think that the opposite is likely.
>>> That with increasing diversity there will come a massive, and 
>>> polarised, competition between new Human species.
>>> Racism writ larger than ever.
>>> Those who don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out 
>>> to those who do.
>>>
>> Dirk, cooperative advantage is fundamental to competitive success at 
>> all scales of organization, from the subatomic through prebiological 
>> and biological to cultural.
>>
>> Do you not think these hypothetical separatists would have some 
>> interests in common, and find ways to cooperate, even temporarily, to 
>> overcome others less organized?  Do you not think that those who find 
>> themselves at a disadvantage would tend to adapt and cooperate rather 
>> than be destroyed?
>>
>> Why do you speculate that these "new humans", more advanced than us, 
>> would recapitulate evolutionary growth from isolated biological 
>> organisms to cooperative cultural organisms?
>>
>> "Looking out for your own" is the essence of morality, and in the 
>> broader sense means converting your potential enemies into trading 
>> partners rather than destroying them.
>
>
> The only morality will be game theory .
> If it is cost effective to trade, then trade.
> If it is cost effective to annihilate the opposition then that's what 
> will happen.
> Why do you expect evolutionary pressures to cease or expect some kind 
> of universal morality beyond game theory?
>
Interesting, your basic assertions match mine, but then you conclude 
that we disagree.

I too think it's all about game theory, but keeping in mind that most 
games are presented within artificially narrow context, so one tends to 
see the pieces but not the greater pattern, and paradox rather than a 
coherent whole.

There's a time to trade and a time to annihilate, each in the near-term 
smaller scale, but overall evolutionary growth favors synergy.  
Competition at one scale can be seen as cooperation at a larger scale 
since it tends to produce systems that are more robust than what 
preceded them. Whether it's two hydrogen and one oxygen atom forming 
water, mitochondria working within the machinery of our cells, or groups 
of humans working together to do what no subgroup could do alone, each 
instance of "cooperation", or synergy, results in a system with greater 
degrees of freedom--greater probable survival value--than before. 

As I've said, looking out for Self is of the essence in morality, as it 
is with game theory. For an agent not to look out for its own interests 
(as it sees them) would be irrational or insane.  But wisdom is seeing 
Self in the bigger picture.  For any given context, what is considered 
"moral" (by that subjective agent) is what works.  And over increasing 
context (of actors and interactions) what increasingly works is 
considered increasingly moral.

Dirk, I'm arguing *for* evolutionary theory, and saying that 
synergy--what we call "cooperation" when it's between agents--is 
fundamental to survival and growth of any evolving system.

- Jef

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:57:30 +0100

Jef Allbright wrote:

>>> interests in common, and find ways to cooperate, even temporarily, 
>>> to overcome others less organized?  Do you not think that those who 
>>> find themselves at a disadvantage would tend to adapt and cooperate 
>>> rather than be destroyed?
>>>
> games are presented within artificially narrow context, so one tends 
> to see the pieces but not the greater pattern, and paradox rather than 
> a coherent whole.
>
> There's a time to trade and a time to annihilate, each in the 
> near-term smaller scale, but overall evolutionary growth favors 
> synergy.  Competition at one scale can be seen as cooperation at a 
> larger scale since it tends to produce systems that are more robust 
> than what preceded them. Whether it's two hydrogen and one oxygen atom 
> forming water, mitochondria working within the machinery of our cells, 
> or groups of humans working together to do what no subgroup could do 
> alone, each instance of "cooperation", or synergy, results in a system 
> with greater degrees of freedom--greater probable survival value--than 
> before.
> As I've said, looking out for Self is of the essence in morality, as 
> it is with game theory. For an agent not to look out for its own 
> interests (as it sees them) would be irrational or insane.  But wisdom 
> is seeing Self in the bigger picture.  For any given context, what is 
> considered "moral" (by that subjective agent) is what works.  And over 
> increasing context (of actors and interactions) what increasingly 
> works is considered increasingly moral.

'Self' in the current bigger picture is the success of propagating ones 
genes into the future.
With immortals that big picture shrinks down to more immediate self.

> fundamental to survival and growth of any evolving system.
Of course it is, but 99% of all the species that have existed are extinct.
Co-operation occurs within species and competition between species in 
the same ecological niche.
I susepct that one of the defining aspects of PostHumans is that their 
'niche' will encompass just about everything.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 25/04/2005

---

From: Jef Allbright <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:36:12 -0700

Jef:  Rather, we can expect *increased* diversity, but within an 
increasingly aware cultural framework that recognizes and promotes the 
enhanced value of cooperative interaction among diverse agents.

Dirk:  I think that the opposite is likely. That with increasing 
diversity there will come a massive, and polarised, competition between 
new Human species. Racism writ larger than ever. Those who don't 'look 
after their own' preferentially will lose out to those who do.

<Snips>

Dirk:  'Self' in the current bigger picture is the success of 
propagating ones genes into the future.  With immortals that big picture 
shrinks down to more immediate self.

Jef:  I'm arguing *for* evolutionary theory, and saying that 
synergy--what we call "cooperation" when it's between agents--is 
fundamental to survival and growth of any evolving system.

Dirk:  Of course it is, but 99% of all the species that have existed are 
extinct.  Co-operation occurs within species and competition between 
species in the same ecological niche.  I susepct that one of the 
defining aspects of PostHumans is that their 'niche' will encompass just 
about everything.

-------------------

Ah, I think I now understand the basis of your assertion of "massive, 
and polarized, competition between new Human species. Racism writ larger 
than ever."  Given an immediate Self effectively all-encompassing due to 
near immortality, and vastly expanded environment for this selfish Self 
to grow into, then I can see why you would predict this kind of all or 
nothing competition.

However, I would argue that as the Players evolve, so does the Game, and 
that when we reach this level of growth and capability, the game will be 
qualitatively different.  I hesitate to make any predictions, from my 
limited point of view, of what such a qualitatively different game would 
be like, but I can offer one likely example:

Physical size and spread will continue to be a competitive advantage in 
terms of "holding the high ground", being able to flank and surround an 
enemy, and being able to store and utilize massive resources.  However, 
a system spread even as far around as the Earth would have inherent 
problems of communication latency between its subsystems.  For this 
reason, the hypothetical PostHuman Self can not be shrunk down as you 
suggest because to do so would limit its ability to compete.  Thus, it 
seems the hypothetical PostHuman must necessarily be in the form of a 
"culture" of semi-autonomous, and thus highly cooperative, subsystems.

In summary, the most successful (read effectively competitive) systems 
of the future can be expected to possess more diversity (degrees of 
freedom), AND be more highly cooperative, than those of today.

- Jef
http://www.jefallbright.net

---

From: Dirk Bruere <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:44:42 +0100

Jef Allbright wrote:

> diversity there will come a massive, and polarised, competition 
> between new Human species. Racism writ larger than ever. Those who 
> don't 'look after their own' preferentially will lose out to those who 
> do.
>
> <Snips>
>
> propagating ones genes into the future.  With immortals that big 
> picture shrinks down to more immediate self.
>
> Dirk:  Of course it is, but 99% of all the species that have existed 
> are extinct.  Co-operation occurs within species and competition 
> between species in the same ecological niche.  I susepct that one of 
> the defining aspects of PostHumans is that their 'niche' will 
> encompass just about everything.
>
> -------------------
>
> and polarized, competition between new Human species. Racism writ 
> larger than ever."  Given an immediate Self effectively 
> all-encompassing due to near immortality, and vastly expanded 
> environment for this selfish Self to grow into, then I can see why you 
> would predict this kind of all or nothing competition.
>
> However, I would argue that as the Players evolve, so does the Game, 
> and that when we reach this level of growth and capability, the game 
> will be qualitatively different.  I hesitate to make any predictions, 
> from my limited point of view, of what such a qualitatively different 
> game would be like, but I can offer one likely example:
>
> Physical size and spread will continue to be a competitive advantage 
> in terms of "holding the high ground", being able to flank and 
> surround an enemy, and being able to store and utilize massive 
> resources.  However, a system spread even as far around as the Earth 
> would have inherent problems of communication latency between its 
> subsystems.  For this reason, the hypothetical PostHuman Self can not 
> be shrunk down as you suggest because to do so would limit its ability 
> to compete.  Thus, it seems the hypothetical PostHuman must 
> necessarily be in the form of a "culture" of semi-autonomous, and thus 
> highly cooperative, subsystems.
>

Which is why I claimed in another thread IIRC that PostHumans will 
evolve into one of two forms. Super self reliant individuals and hive minds.
As for the semi-autonomous bits within such hive minds, think 
super-nationalism.
I see the 'individuals' getting out of town really fast because of their 
inability to compete, and evolutionary convergence to a single planetary 
(or even solar system) hive mind. Whether the latter is achieved via 
merger, extermination or assimilation by conquest I can't guess.

-- 
Dirk

The Consensus:-