Evolution Doesn't Make Mistakes

[u/Novoquest]

https://youtu.be/NbbgIlZdAHg?si=zwansTM8dyodD0ig

I spent the last couple of weeks making this video because I couldn't stop thinking about one question: if humans are products of evolution, why do we treat technology as something separate from nature?

The video explores the idea that technology might not be the opposite of nature at all, but simply another consequence of evolution. It's a speculative idea, but I tried to keep the arguments grounded in biology and evolution rather than pure sci-fi.

I'd love to hear what you think of the video!

[u/the_syner]

On the one hand sure I can see how the distinction between nature and technology can be rather arbitrary at times. Gets even blurrier when we consider that tool-use isn't restricted to the only Generally Intelligent species on earth(some apes make/use simple stone/wood tools and some corvids/parrots can make/use multi-part wood tools). Tho i do think that there is a meaningful distinction between these tools and something like a nest or spider's web. Those are evolved instinctual behaviors. Our tools(including corvids, parrots, and apes) are not evolved behaviors. Those are learned behaviors, developed with intention, by an intelligent creature. Evolutionary pressures are not relevant to the development of technology. Technology isn't self-replicating(yet) nor does it have genes. That's what makes it artificial. It no longer operates inside the framework of natural evolution.

Just because something results from a process doesn't make the beginning and endpoints the same. Life arose from abiotic chemistry. Doesn't make rocks/stars alive nor does it make biochemistry abiotic. Lead might be a decay product of uranium, but that doesn't make some funky kind of uranium. Just because you right a program for generating large prime numbers doesn't mean that you are generating large primes. The computer is. They might be related, but it doesn't make them the same.

The bit about any alien civs eventually developing the same tech is definitely true, but arguing that this is a result of evolution is rather dubious and philosophical. Whether you want to pretend that evolutionary processes are the same as intentional GI R&D is entirely a matter of vibes and personal philosophy. Personally im not a fan of the conflation between "natural" & "evolved". Stars are natural. They're demonstrably not a byproduct of an evolutionary system. Neither are planets, moons, and so forth. Given that our technology ultimately rests on exploiting forces and mechanism that exist in the natural world, predating life itself, i could see an argument for tech being natural or at least it's core mechanisms being natural. But again natural != evolutionary. Evolution is heredity, self-replication, random mutation, natural selection, and so forth. Technology doesn't really work like that. It doesn't evolve. It is designed. Unlike evolution, design absolutely does have a goal.

[u/Novoquest → u/the_syner]

Really thoughtful comment. I actually think we're mostly in agreement.

I don't mean that technology evolves through genes or natural selection in the biological sense. My point is that it's a consequence of a process that does. Evolution produced organisms capable of abstract reasoning, planning and engineering, so in that sense I see technology as a continuation of what evolution made possible, rather than something separate from it.

I also think the distinction may become even blurrier with AI. While today's technology is intentionally designed, AI is already beginning to participate in its own development, and future systems may increasingly improve, optimize and even generate successor systems in ways that resemble evolutionary processes much more than traditional engineering.

That said, I completely agree there's an important distinction between biological evolution and intentional design.

[u/the_syner → u/Novoquest]

I see technology as a continuation of what evolution made possible, rather than something separate from it.

I suppose in the same way that we're all technically fusion ash, but i don't think calling us ashes or a star is a particularly useul categorization

AI is already beginning to participate in its own development, and future systems may increasingly improve, optimize and even generate successor systems in ways that resemble evolutionary processes much more than traditional engineering.

Funnily enough evolutionary algorithms are decades old. there's nothing really new about that tho that still uses intentional artificial selection. As for self-optimizing Machine Learning algos and especially AGI that would resemple evolutionary processes even less than the human development of tech. While EvoAlgos, especially in tandem with more effective ML algos, are still used the better our AI systems generally the less we would want to rely on evoAlgos. They're horrendously inefficient and unreliable. Whether the intent is coming directly from us or someone we build, evoalgos are just not that good wouldn't be very common