@1: your definition of evolution, patriarchal darwinianism, is just one view of how things change, but darwin's theories neglect the value of life lived without procreating; the interconnected consequences of the attempts that survive but do not propagate. for example: humanity could migrate to mars, utterly fail, completely die off there, and their time spent would irreversibly change the course of evolution for those humans who stayed behind, their lives entangled even if they never stopped off the planet.

but that doesn't matter, because your opening thesis: that humans cannot beget a creation more than themselves - contradicts the very idea of evolution you try to weaponize.

so, did our ancestors supplant us through evolution, or all attempts to progress futile? is there a difference between "artificial" evolution and this "natural world" you speak of?

as if the "natural" world isn't exactly what built the computer?

but at the end of the argument, the difference is one side is trying to grow, and the other is trying to limit. as further evidenced by your "nice try, tho" bro end-of-discussion-i-win-gotcha sign off. why are you here?


Super cool article. I learned a thing the other day that might be germaine to this discussion. It is the word 'carcinization' which describes the process by which 5 different lineages of crabs have evolved from completely separate groups of crustaceans.

Thanos was not inevitable, nor were we; crabs though......


Gaia welcomes Moore's Law

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.