Re: Evolved Preferences

Steve Witham (
Mon, 28 Apr 1997 20:40:52 -0400

Robin Hanson wrote:

>>As we become better at exchanging information in ways other than via
>>sexual reproduction, it seems the longer time-horizon of asexual
>>reproduction should win out.

If we skip details about *how* genes (that is, the information that
is used to produce an offspring) get from here to there, the distinction
between asexual and sexual reproduction boils down to *where* the
information comes from. Does it all descend from the information that
originally went into the parent, with no other input, *or does it come
from more than one source*? If the latter, that's sex in my book.

Robin, you are clearly using a different definition of "sexual
reproduction" since you are talking about different ways of
exchanging information (the essence of sex as I see it)--what is your
distinction and why is it interesting? Are you only talking about
*current* methods of mixing information vs... *all the possible other
ways*? To me, most of the possible ways of mixing information
are even *more* sexual than the current two-parent, crossover-only
methods. Why do you use the term "asexual" for these more-sexy methods?

One way of making the distinction (motivated by your question of how
people's behavior and repro strategies might change) would be: does
the contribution of the other parent come as a package deal? Even
if genes become nanite subroutines sent over the internet, package-deals
would still be possible. (N mutually suspecting parties can agree to
put their separate contributions into a box where
some agreed-on process determines the combination.) Maybe package
deals would have a long-term advantage over finer-grain choosability...

>There are two recent trends, both of which favor asexual reproduction:
>1) Until recently, organisms have had very little occasion to make
>long-term investments other than children. So the investment benefit
>of asexual reproduction has been moot. But now humans do have to
>choose between "consuming" their own ability to have more children
>now, and investing toward their children's ability to have more
>children later.

I think this just means, reproduce now (with current methods) vs.
invest, then reproduce more wisely later? The sexual/asexual question
seems independent here, even with your definition. For instance, I
could become rich and marry a carefully selected mate who was
capable of bearing large litters, and fund the raising of all these

>2) Until recently, orgnisms have had very little effective means to
>communicated information about how to build better organims, other than
>via sexual reproduction. Now humans can exchange culture and memes,
>and and uploads & A.I.s may be able to buy and sell new designs for
>their componenets and new knowledge on a truely vast scale. Sexual
>reproduction won't be needed to exchange this information.

You seem to be saying, the *old way* of exchanging info is limited,
and there will be more interesting ways. Yes, you're right!

But still it's sexual reproduction, in the sense that all the things
we know about sexual reproduction (and the comparison with asexual
reproduction) still apply, right? I mean, for instance, observations
about selfish genes, or dynamics where two synergistic genes build up
slowly in a gene pool, then suddenly take over when they reach a threshold
of popularity, etc. Phenomena that biologists think of as applying
only to species that have sex.

The reason I ask is that I could imagine things that would really
deserve the term asexual--hermits going off and purposely isolating
themselves from contamination by others' ideas--that might be
interesting to compare with idea-mixing reproduction, although I
still guess this asexual route in this sense would be a minor niche
if viable at all.


--           Steve Witham          web page under reconsideration