It surprises me that we hold such an anachronistic view of evolution -- ie. seeing it as a mechanical process ("only optimizes for survival and replication")

Humans cannot engineer an evolutionary process for consciousness better than nature because we lack a systemic view

The IVF clinic of the future will combine a handful of technologies (the Gattaca stack):

1. In vitro gametogenesis (IvG) - make eggs from skin or blood cells (much less invasive)
2. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) - choose the embryo that best matches what you want,

Brian Armstrong

It surprises me that we hold such an anachronistic view of evolution -- ie. seeing it as a mechanical process ("only optimizes for survival and replication")

Humans cannot engineer an evolutionary process for consciousness better than nature because we lack a systemic view

https://x.com/brian_armstrong/status/1907190962125938734

Yikes. Didn’t know Brian be like that. 

This is a re-run of 19th century ideas, just with new fancy tools

Beauty, perhaps better interpreted as “congruence”, is a proxy for truth

Nature seldom creates a scene that is incongruent 

People on the other hand, can’t help but do so

If you want to create something great, prioritize beauty and its associated emotions - awe, wonder, joy, etc.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution-animal.html

In my view, consciousness is primary and one way it expresses itself is through beauty, which itself is a proxy for truth: https://warpcast.com/androidsixteen.eth/0xaa915b8b

Natural selection and other prior theories of evolution originated in the industrial era, lending to a more mechanical view of the processes (and a more brutish view of nature)

Solidity Engineer | Researcher | Onchain Degen | DMs Open | https://github.com/0xCooki

how else should we view evolution? I think that’s the right way to view it, why is this wrong?

It’s a slippery slope going from this line of thinking to full out eugenics