Age of Em is the “book of the day” today at the Guardian newspaper, the 5th most widely read one in the world. Reviewer Steven Poole hates the em world: The Age of Em is a fanatically serious attempt .. to use economic and social science to forecast in fine detail how this world (if it is even possible) will actually work. The future it portrays is very strange and, in the end, quite horrific for everyone involved. .. This hellish cyberworld is quite cool to think about in a dystopian Matrixy way, although the book is much drier than fiction.
I've only read the free sample available from the publisher--as I work in a library, I think I'll feel free to NOT buy this, but wait until it shows up in our catalog. That said, my problem with the book isn't the subject it addresses, but the fact that it appears to NOT address any sort of real-world problem! Indeed, I find that is my problem with economists generally, insofar as I can understand what they write. You, sir, seem to have no interest in HUMANITY, the species of which you are a member. The novelist Richard K. Morgan opines that "Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a wilful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses." [2002] THAT is the problem--the only problem--and your 'future' speculation fails to address that problem. Unless by 'volunteering' to be one of the brains chosen for destructive scanning, thus opting decisively out of the question entirely, counts as an address. If, as a profession, economics or history or mathematics or whatever are not addressing how to change the situation depicted in the quotation, what good are you?Sincerely, One of the exploited and oppressed, and yes, more ignorant and stupid than you, quite probably.
Thanks for the steel man! One of my bugbears is people using the standard Darwinian (mal)adaptive as something that automatically equates to (un)desireable in the socio political sense... I for one don't want to live in a society that's always banging up against Malthusian limits.
Anyway, when people talk about "maladaptive" behaviors, they overlook two things:
1) A behavior can be "maladaptive" in the sense that it leaves fewer genetic offspring, but still be completely rational and fulfill the preferences of the individual person. It can also make the world a better place, according to plausible value systems.
2) The cultural memes leading to such behavior are often very adaptive, when you look at them as replicators of their own right. Low-fertility cultural ideals and practices have spread very successfully, which is not surprising since human minds are adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers, so memes that appeal to us will find their niches even if they lead to better offspring (the invention of the condom and porn were both very adaptive memes). Of course, there is no guarantee that it stays that way.
I don't see the em world as appealing either. Nor do I find the book very appealing. I don't know how people have read it so quickly - I am still slogging through it - and as always I learn many things from Robin. But but but.... It is a rather dismal portrait of a very dismal world - and because I am human I do miss some "drama", "conflict" and "uproar" (which Robin argues should be set aside in a "simple and likely" analysis). But these very things seem to me to be endemic to humans, and thus negate the probability of blind economic forces just running their course. Excelsior, You Fathead!
I've only read the free sample available from the publisher--as I work in a library, I think I'll feel free to NOT buy this, but wait until it shows up in our catalog. That said, my problem with the book isn't the subject it addresses, but the fact that it appears to NOT address any sort of real-world problem! Indeed, I find that is my problem with economists generally, insofar as I can understand what they write. You, sir, seem to have no interest in HUMANITY, the species of which you are a member. The novelist Richard K. Morgan opines that "Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a wilful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses." [2002] THAT is the problem--the only problem--and your 'future' speculation fails to address that problem. Unless by 'volunteering' to be one of the brains chosen for destructive scanning, thus opting decisively out of the question entirely, counts as an address. If, as a profession, economics or history or mathematics or whatever are not addressing how to change the situation depicted in the quotation, what good are you?Sincerely, One of the exploited and oppressed, and yes, more ignorant and stupid than you, quite probably.
Thanks for the steel man! One of my bugbears is people using the standard Darwinian (mal)adaptive as something that automatically equates to (un)desireable in the socio political sense... I for one don't want to live in a society that's always banging up against Malthusian limits.
*fewer offspring, not better
He probably meant 7 billion people.
Anyway, when people talk about "maladaptive" behaviors, they overlook two things:
1) A behavior can be "maladaptive" in the sense that it leaves fewer genetic offspring, but still be completely rational and fulfill the preferences of the individual person. It can also make the world a better place, according to plausible value systems.
2) The cultural memes leading to such behavior are often very adaptive, when you look at them as replicators of their own right. Low-fertility cultural ideals and practices have spread very successfully, which is not surprising since human minds are adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers, so memes that appeal to us will find their niches even if they lead to better offspring (the invention of the condom and porn were both very adaptive memes). Of course, there is no guarantee that it stays that way.
I read it as more maladaptive than it was in the past. Most of the 7 billion years are past,
> How is it remotely “hating” of people to see recent behavior as more evolutionarily maladaptive
Maladaptive to what? 7 billion and counting ain't bad.
I don't see the em world as appealing either. Nor do I find the book very appealing. I don't know how people have read it so quickly - I am still slogging through it - and as always I learn many things from Robin. But but but.... It is a rather dismal portrait of a very dismal world - and because I am human I do miss some "drama", "conflict" and "uproar" (which Robin argues should be set aside in a "simple and likely" analysis). But these very things seem to me to be endemic to humans, and thus negate the probability of blind economic forces just running their course. Excelsior, You Fathead!