When we see things in nature, it's always possible that they serve a purpose. Adaptive traits are selected for. It's also possible they aren't.
It seems there are three possibilities:
- Trait is useful.
- Trait was useful (no longer is).
- Trait is neutral.
> Besides shouldn't proper deep thinkers should be able to weigh risks of ideologies?
Shouldn't a good programmer be able to look at a program and its input and determine with 100% certainty whether or not the program will halt?
It might seem so but of course we know from computer science that they [in the general case] cannot. Deep thinking and intelligence alone aren't enough to predict all of the possible routes through a complex problem space.
Some things just have to be tried in order to be understood. And because of that it's probably safe to stick with things that have been tried before over things that seem reasonable to some smart but not all knowing person but that haven't been tried before.
"Adaptive" is not a Boolean. Contradictory, even mutually hostile, traits can develop because the ecosystem switches between different modes for various physical reasons [1] and different survival skills are optimal in each.
By the time you get to humans you have an incoherent patchwork of mutually exclusive behaviour modes and cognitive approaches - not just between individuals, but within individuals.
[1] Seasonal changes, population cycles, and so on.
When we see things in nature, it's always possible that they serve a purpose. Adaptive traits are selected for. It's also possible they aren't.
It seems there are three possibilities:
> Besides shouldn't proper deep thinkers should be able to weigh risks of ideologies?Shouldn't a good programmer be able to look at a program and its input and determine with 100% certainty whether or not the program will halt?
It might seem so but of course we know from computer science that they [in the general case] cannot. Deep thinking and intelligence alone aren't enough to predict all of the possible routes through a complex problem space.
Some things just have to be tried in order to be understood. And because of that it's probably safe to stick with things that have been tried before over things that seem reasonable to some smart but not all knowing person but that haven't been tried before.
Aren't most mutations harmful afterall?