✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Adaptation-Executers, not Fitness-Maximizers — LessWrong

lesswrong.com · 5,415 words · saved by 1 readers

Fifty thousand years ago, the taste buds of Homo sapiens directed their bearers to the scarcest, most critical food resources—sugar and fat. Calories, in a word. Today, the context of a taste bud's function has changed, but the taste buds themselves have not. Calories, far from being scarce (in First World countries), are actively harmful. Micronutrients that were reliably abundant in leaves and nuts are absent from bread, but our taste buds don't complain. A scoop of ice cream is a superstimulus, containing more sugar, fat, and salt than anything in the ancestral environment. No human being with the deliberate goal of maximizing their alleles' inclusive genetic fitness, would ever eat a cookie unless they were starving. But individual organisms are best thought of as adaptation-executers, not fitness-maximizers. A toaster, though its designer intended it to make toast, does not bear within it the intelligence of the designer—it won't automatically redesign and reshape itself if you tr

x Adaptation-Executers, not Fitness-Maximizers — LessWrong The Simple Math of Evolution Evolution General intelligence Superstimuli Adaptation Executors Shard Theory Rationality Frontpage 186 Adaptation-Executers, not Fitness-Maximizers by Eliezer Yudkowsky 11th Nov 2007 4 min read 34 186 "Individual organisms are best thought of as adaptation-executers rather than as fitness-maximizers." —John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, The Psychological Foundations of Culture. Fifty thousand years ago, the taste buds of Homo sapiens directed their bearers to the scarcest, most critical food resources—sugar and

Explore this link on the map →

related reading