Skip to main content

Exoplanetary altruism...will it be similar to ours?

Facebook friend Johnathan Vos Post posed a question regarding altruism in humans as compared to what we might find when extraplanetry species are encountered. My answer:

It has to, otherwise the species would self destruct. It would never grow society complex enough to take advantage of the increased brain size of the individuals.

The threshold for competing with one another would prevent civilization from ever you'd get species like we have here on Earth...which have intelligence but have never emerged complex civilization from the cultural tricks that they've evolved. Many species exhibit clear signs of being necessary in fact for parents to even *care* about or for their progeny.

It may be instinctive but that makes no difference...the induced empathy is what leads to the formation of relationships that allow younger generations to become older and move on the gene pool...absent that empathy you've got a self destructive situation for the entire species.

In human evolutionary history keep in mind that despite the fact that we have very large intelligent brains and have possibly the most complex social interactions of all still took us nearly 200,000 years to emerge civilization.

I say this was so for two reasons:

1) Gathering intelligence collectively over time is hard. Intelligence isn't enough in individuals...some means of copying it across individuals as they grow, age and die must exist. While the environment is trying to kill you this is hard to do consistently. I am sure there were many Einsteins born 150,000 , 90,000 and 45,000 years ago...and they died because of where they happened to be...or their efforts given the paltry culture and tools that existed where they happened to be born only allowed them limited ability to advance things in their area before they were some virus, or some disaster or war. This likely happened thousands of times all over the world.

2) The natural tendency to fear "the other" is a powerful motivator of anti-altruistic behavior , especially when "the other" is speaking a different language, wears different clothes and prays to a different god. Rather that be seen as a bonus all that difference is a reason to want to get rid of the "other" as quickly as possible. We see this again over and over...of conflict fomented by just the existence of perceived difference. Where it not for the ability for us to collect intelligence over time and use that to increase survival...and thus produce societies where more smart brains can think beyond survival needs and then postulate the possibility of altruism being applied with the "other" to achieve common goals of survival...we would still be a thousand little bands of warring factions...each surviving but all fearful of the next raid or attack from some near by group.

The answer is really about the math of what maximizes survival of the species in a given competitive environment when both intelligence and social living are present. You can't even get to social living without some level of individual give and take...and that requires absent that, you won't even emerge social species complex enough to achieve civilization.

I also expanded a bit on how I felt empathy and altruism were related in the species and in fact all species.

At base:

Empathy (the ability to see through the eyes of another) > Sympathy (using empathy to feel what another feels once seeing what they see) > altruism (giving just to give without expectation of return) > cooperation (giving with hope to get something in exchange..either material or social favor down the line)

It's starting to look like the base (empathy) is hard wired and if a species thus doesn't have it, or has it at different expression levels that species will find it very difficult to ever rise above "the noise of survival" to even get to being altruistic in the social sense that we humans exhibit.

So my conclusion is, in order for exoplanetary species to even get to a point where they are advanced and can probe beyond their home world's the same as we do with signals and robot probes to other bodies in their solar systems they would need to have the built in machinery to exhibit empathy and that would need to be combined with advanced intelligence (simply scale) such that over interaction time separate groups could learn to apply the ability for derived cooperation (which in my view exists once altruism exists) to reduce survival constraints for all groups to the point that cooperation between groups is not only likely but advantageous....the wrong balance in the species leads to it either self destructing at some point of development or of never ever rising  beyond a given point of social complexity.


Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

Live Coding Exercises: How NOT to hire potentially Brilliant Engineers.

I've intimated this view before but, I abhor "live coding" exercises for engineering interviews and will never have them as part of any interview process I conduct. They are simply unrealistic to real world engineering in every possible way, they only test familiarity (or luck) with a tiny subset of solution methods to a specif subset of problems...that you either "nail" or get spectacularly wrong depending on who is observing you.

They are mostly entirely unfair to the candidate on top of the pressure of having a gun under them while coding, only in the most extreme cases is coding under the gun and that's just competitions where the code is far from real world engineering why test for general coding ability with such tests?? Stupid.

I posit, it is significantly more effective to see examples of a candidates finished working code in the form of a project or projects they've created. How long it took some one to get some uber algorithm work…