(the following is here for research and archival purposes)
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Nature is bad; intelligence is good
No CEO of any business would abide by the methodologies of natural selection for refining existing products or producing new ones. The manner in which "nature" works when selecting what's "best" is quite dumb, really: make a bunch of copies of stuff that doesn't actually fix or accomplish anything, then throw all of them into the trash except for the one that seems to work the best in that particular niche.
That would be like if a major corporation attempted to determine which product was best suited for a given market by creating ten variations on that product at random -- with two being horribly inoperable -- spending millions of dollars on each product line, and then terminating all of the lines but the one that appears most profitable. Nature is worse, though, because its "products" can scream in pain and terror, and usually do at least once in their lives.
The more "natural" that something is by conventional definitions, the stupider it is to adopt, revere, or support it. Foresight, planning, and goals are far superior to blindness, idiocy, and apathy.
Posted by Leaving Society at 11:34 PM 3 comments:
3 comments:
ElizabethMarch 7, 2011 at 4:52 PM
Sorry I haven't written in a long time.
You're wrong in saying that mindless processes are never useful. Genetic algorithms are good for finding effective (if not optimal) solutions in very little time. Since we have limited time and storage space it's not always rational to use planning and foresight; it's better to prioritize it for important problems. Unless there is a massive revolution in general AI, at least.
Reply
Leaving SocietyMarch 7, 2011 at 8:14 PM
Using computer algorithms to process and select for advantageous traits within milliseconds or less is not the same thing as putting an entire lifetime of energy and resources into ten different models where it's obvious that only one of them is optimal. Yeah, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is never an advantage in random variation, but in the case of computer models, the resources and processing power in use is so minimal -- and so quick -- that it doesn't waste nearly as much as the conventional method, which is not to generate models, but to generate the end products themselves. If a business were to actually produce millions of several different variations of a model and then sell them (rather than select the best one before getting to that stage, where the actual waste occurs), only to realize after the fact that only one made economic sense, then they'd be proving my point.
Reply
AnonymousNovember 2, 2011 at 6:29 PM
What's that? I was too busy being blind, apathetic, and idiotic to start hating your anthropomorphized bitch-goddess.
Reply
We finally show up on the scene to clean up the mess but decide to turn a blind eye
When the non-religious among us proclaim their love for life, it really rubs me the wrong way, because they seem to think that the rest of the planet works the way that their Western, New Agey, free spirit, nudist, nature-loving society does. Meanwhile, for almost a billion years, now, organisms have been popping into existence against their consent, and have had no means of justifying their existences, or even thinking about whether life makes sense as an intelligent concept. Until you've been a dinosaur with worms, or a hyena on the verge of starvation, you really don't have the right to say that life is some praiseworthy idea -- especially considering that forces far dumber than ourselves were responsible for its inception.
Want to know the meaning of life? It's simple, really: want, want, want, chase, chase, chase, take, take, take, run away, run away, run away, multiply, multiply, multiply. Maybe a given organism is chasing its love for honey, or maybe it's about to eat your newborn baby. Nature couldn't care less, because it's much dumber than we are.
The binary system of attraction and repulsion that all non-human organisms use is quite scary, really. No animal has ever decided to live in the name of perseverance, or proving some point that it's 'successful' and 'life-loving.' That's all manmade, ego-driven nonsense. Animals don't have a choice, and they haven't for a solid billion years.
Ever have a relative slowly die of stomach cancer over the course of six months while crying and screaming in agony? Yeah, that's been happening for a billion years for no reason -- to beings that don't even have the capacity to wonder whether life is "worth it."
What are humans trying to prove by having children and continuing to perpetuate life? "I'll show everyone how great at living I am by beating cancer! Yeah, I'll show nature that I'm good enough to eat and make copies of myself. Life can't beat me. Torture me all you want for screwing up in my mindless pursuit of desirable things; I'll win and prove that it's worth it!"
Posted by Leaving Society at 11:24 PM 2 comments:
2 comments:
AnonymousNovember 2, 2011 at 9:29 PM
What a great imitation! Here, let me do you:
"I refuse to mind my own goddamn business, because I have no business of my own to mind, anymore than a smallpox virus does"
Wasn't that great?
Reply
Leaving SocietyNovember 4, 2011 at 10:31 PM
I don't believe in the concept of minding one's own business, so no, it wasn't. Privacy is a cultural contrivance. Perhaps people should mind their business when they're out controlling pest populations, though, eh? It really isn't any of their business which rats want to fuck which rats! Sheesh!
No comments:
Post a Comment