A logical person might detonate a nuke. However a super-empath cannot without suffering horrifically.
There's a reason we don't have this ability. People are fond of life precisely because we can't feel the suffering of others, or for that matter, remember our own suffering for very long. A super-empath is an evolutionary dead end, which is why there aren't any.
Nice idea in a philosophical sense, but not practical.
> but that is what we need.
On what basis? Don't you think evolution provides meaningful answers to questions like this? If you want to know how evolution reacts to this idea (to stretch a concept to its breaking point), just count the super-empaths you know. Then count their devoted followers.
> A logical person might detonate a nuke. However a super-empath cannot without suffering horrifically.
Such a person would quickly fall victim to someone who would not suffer horrifically by detonating a nuke. How can you not see that?
The universe is morally neutral. There's no benevolent superbeing that rewards the sensitive souls you're describing. Indeed, to understand this idea's history, study religion, the most ruthless and bloodthirsty human institution ever imagined.
>There's a reason we don't have this ability. People are fond of life precisely because we can't feel the suffering of others, or for that matter, remember our own suffering for very long. A super-empath is an evolutionary dead end, which is why there aren't any.
We are fond of life because we emulate in our minds how it works and then translate those feelings to ourselves. Super-empath would work on a much more detailed scale. There are some context in which super-empaths could prove to be an evolutionary viable, but they are firmly in the realm of SF.
> Indeed, to understand this idea's history, study religion, the most ruthless and bloodthirsty human institution ever imagined.
I don't understand the idea of singling out religion. Sure it is probably outstayed it's welcome at this point, but it had a very important, positive even, impact on overall life of individuals.
In our time, people with a tendency towards drug abuse, psychopathy and unchecked aggression, may well have a lesser likelyhood to reproduce. The same obviously is even more true for people with chromosomal aberrations.
I wanted to mean evolution will improve us eventually, only if those people with aggressive impulses have severe disadvantage going forward in the society. But that premise is debatable, I agree.
At that point I stopped reading. There is no such thing as "guided evolution." If it's guided, it's not evolution. The "guided evolution" sentiment only betrays the ignorance of the writer.
Evolution is not a process of design by committee as suggested in the article. It is a much more basic process in which whatever survives, survives, and no one may ever know the exact reason why the last organism standing is present for the next phase.
As to "We must create a race of superhumans ...", we're not qualified to do that, any more than a team of carpenters can create an Einstein simply by diligently hammering on the problem.
Judging by history, we are. We created better computing machines, better chess players, better factory workers, better communication channels, better senors, than any of us is or is equipped with without such augmentation.
Not at all. The best inventions evolve -- they don't result from a committee deciding on the best design without what is euphemistically called "field testing". "Field testing" is slang for evolution.
Committee-designed products, as attractive as they may appear in a superficial sense, are famously out of touch with people's real needs. The Edsel. Microsoft Windows. Communism. Revealed religion.
> We created better computing machines, better chess players, better factory workers, better communication channels, better senors ...
Better than what? You offer no basis for comparison, required for a scientific appraisal. As to chess, it's not possible to support this claim because the best chess players get to where they are by undergoing evolution -- systematic elimination of all that fail to meet the very high standard set by the environment in which they live. Chess tournaments imitate nature and represent evolution at work.
> ... than any of us is or is equipped with without such augmentation.
What augmentation is that? Are you aware that corporations wouldn't dream of launching a new product without field tests and consumer feedback? And are you aware that field testing is deliberately imitative of nature, of evolution?
I'll say it again -- not only are we unable to create an Einstein, we can't even recognize one until his ideas have been hammered against the anvil of direct experience and survived. Just like nature. Just like evolution.
