Comments on: Natural Genocide

By: Overcoming Bias : History of Inequality

Overcoming Bias : History of Inequality — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:50:13 +0000

[...] While this distribution holds less inequality in the short run, still over very long runs it accumulates into vast inequality. For example, most species today descend from a tiny fraction of the species [...]

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:40:48 +0000

Spin, repeated independent swaps gives a log normal distribution of sizes, and so the mean log change shows how the median moves. The mean log change per max correlation swap is .5*log(3/2)+ .5*(1/2).

By: spindizzy

spindizzy — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:06:08 +0000

> If exterminating a race is bad, is exterminating a species worse?

Exterminating the Anopheles (malarial) mosquito would probably be a good thing.

We can be justified in sacrificing another species for the good of our own. Therefore, I suggest the same logic can be applied to human groups / races / tribes, and of course it has been applied repeatedly throughout history.

I guess what I’m saying is: guilt is the luxury of the victor.

> divide it into halves, pick one at random and delete
> a random half of it

You mean a half of a half i.e. a quarter of the whole?

Sorry, I’m dense about maths so you really have to spell things out.

By: Peter St. Onge

Peter St. Onge — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:24:14 +0000

It’ll also be interesting once we see therapeutic genetic therapy; it seems conceivable that great swathes of genetic variation could be eliminated for being unfashionable.

Of course, if this therapy were reversible (cf cosmetic surgery today), then we may see an explosion in genetic variety (centaurs, drow elves).

Similar phenomenon cross-species; begs the question why we bother saving species from extinction when schoolchildren in 2100 will have pet griffins and unicorns.

By: Shaun

Shaun — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:35:25 +0000

It could be argued that extinction is something that happens naturally, while genocide seems to be more of a term applied to humans. In which case genocide is the actual goal and not just the outcome. Extinction seems to be more along the lines or survival of the fittest, whereas genocide is straight up annihilation of a certain group. Also, forever are there to be new lineages because people and animals interbreed to the point where the original strain is just filtered/blended out.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:50:43 +0000

This analysis applies directly to discrete mutually-exclusive labels, where each short-lived individual has exactly one of the labels. Examples include main language spoken, eye color, prefers Plato or Aristotle, etc.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:57:48 +0000

Spin, some murders are appropriate too, but most should be lamented Reminds me of something James Q Wilson said. If exterminating a race is bad, is exterminating a species worse? I think I heard somewhere that the vast majority of species go extinct.

By: athmwiji

athmwiji — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:51:08 +0000

perhaps, by a lineage, you mean the set of people who have a common allele, so there is one lineage for each allele? In this case you should include mutations as creating new lineages. Also, each person belongs to exactly two lineages for each gene. Is this what you mean?

Or do you mean just matrilineal or patrilineal descendents? Or bacteria?

When you say any set of individuals is a lineage, this seems odd. Do you mean any subset of the population of all living things throughout history. In which case if there are N individuals in history then there are 2^N subsets and 2^N lineages? It would seem odd for example to count the set of only myself and Napoleon’s steed as a lineage.

By: Allan Crossman

Allan Crossman — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:47:19 +0000

I’m sorry for double posting.

The math I described applies to any set of individuals as a “lineage.”

I assume you mean any set of individuals, plus all of their descendants? But as soon as you take descendants into account, lineages start to come together, and we get to the stage where it’s impossible to destroy (all of) one lineage without destroying (a large part of) the other.

It seems to me that the model would only describe the actual world if the dead were replaced by clones of the living, rather than ordinary children.

By: Allan Crossman

Allan Crossman — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 16:01:23 +0000

Constant: that’s a more clearer version of what I was trying to say, thanks!