Is Evil a DEFAULT in nature?

Question

Films like the Demon Seed, the Terminator series of films, I Robot, or even going back as far as Forbidden Planet, which is slightly different but along the same lines, do they show that evolution is not so much about 'caring and sharing' at any level of the food chain. but more about surpassing that which has gone before, by eliminating that which is weaker than that which evolves after it.

If you want to be a good person - doesn't that tend to leave you vulnerable.

If you want to be an evil person - doesn't that tend to make OTHERS vulnerable to you.

Like the various sci fi films I have mentioned depict - if we make machines that eventually surpass our own intelligence, isn't that parallel to the dinosaurs versus the mammels?

'Might is right' - is that the bottom line in life - or do we have the power to overcome this mechanism in nature, which seems that it is inevitable that it will threaten our future as a species - ironically in our case by our own hands?

Interesting answer so far - and I think after careful consideration I've got the catagory right; although I wish Yahoo would spend a lot more time and effort on making the sub-routine that predicts where your question would be best suited - not least because sometimes people get their questions deleted (myself included) when they thought they had posted it in the right place and someone else disagree - it needs to go through some kind of authentication process, so there are no arguments about allocations to the right catagory.
It needs to be a lot more comprehensive and sophisticated in it's 'profiling' technices.

Also, I do wish people would relinquish their membership to the Moral Coward Society, i.e. no IM or Email address to return feedback on answers to questions!

I also wish Yahoo would introduce a grammar check aswell as the spellchecker that's already there when you post your questions. People obviously are passionate about what they think and in a hurry to get it down, as is the example with the first and hopefully not the last answer here and as part of that grammar check I would like to see a 'pigeon English' filter to weed out all the ghetto talk type questions, which sometimes are totally incomprehensible!

Some really interesting answers coming in, but I have real concerns about the artificial intelligence we are slowly but inexorably developing!

It's all very well 'caring and sharing and working as a team and all that sweet smelling stuff, but what happens when something we CREATE to look after us, decides that WHAT IT feels about our care is more important than WHAT WE FEEL - or worse that WE ARE SURPLUS TO REQUIREMENT.

Take a concept as simple as employment - 20 years ago I used to be a telex operator - I suppose I could get a job polishing them in a museum - could we become REDUNDANT as a species.

Like Worf said to Picard after he had been transformed into Lecutus of Borg:-

"I like my species the way it is".

The bionic age is upon us - if we become part human part machine - we're upgraded so to speak that's one thing, but if a machine that's not part of us says 'hang on a minute' you humans are inferior and in our way - we need to eradicate you - how would you feel?

Could our fate be decided in the future by a machines opinion ?

Answer 1

Evil? no. Evil is a moral characterization. People are very self-serving, however.

Dawkin's book "the selfish gene" probably addresses a lot of your thoughts. Google it.

Answer 2

That's a pretty common mistake about evolution (and Machiavelli, too). It seems pretty obvious that the stronger critters would outcompete everyone else, right? Except, no, that's not really what happens. If strength were the only determining factor, the world would look a lot different than it does today.

Other traits are incredibly useful, if used well. Speed, for instance, has allowed deer and rabbits to become quite successful species. Intelligence has gotten us weak, slow, easily killed humans very far. That's actually where the sharing and caring come in. That is absolutely vital to the development of intelligence. The more intelligent a critter is, the longer it takes for the babies to develop into adults. Iguanas, for instance, are stupid. Their babies can take care of themselves after hatching because their minute brains are already developed and it's not like they have to learn to read.

Primates are smart. Our babies can't take care of themselves right away, because they continue to develop outside the womb. Humans take it pretty far- we have a lengthy childhood and an adolescence, which not only gives our brains time to fully form, but also allows us the opportunity to learn our culture from our elders. Since we're able to build on our knowledge gained from previous generations, we've been able to pretty much take over the planet.

We need to hang out together in a cultural group to raise those babies properly. Even a man and a woman together can't do it alone. The bigger the group, the safer everyone is. I watch your kids tomorrow while you hunt, you watch mine this afternoon so I can go gather some nuts, and we both win.

It's not just kids that this benefits, either. Have you ever heard of the theory of enlightened self-interest? Basically, it means that if you are a nice, generous, helpful person, people are more likely to help you out. It does work. Look at the average group of friends. Last year, I helped my friend move. I counseled someone else through a job change. The third always borrows clothes. Now, while doing all this, I never gave thought to how they could repay me. However, when I go through difficult times or need some help, those ladies are there for me, lending me clothes, their ear, or twenty bucks. We all benefit, without even having to keep receipts for who did what. If any of us stopped being helpful to others, the rest of us would get all kinds of resentful about being used and would drop her if she didn't shape up. Hunter/gatherer groups, the way of life that humans evolved in, use that same system to great effect.

Answer 3

no evil is not a default in nature! Think about this. Live is evil spelled backwards. It is all about survival of the fittest. this is the way it has been since the begining of time. As a species we will never overcome this mechanism in nature, and why in reality would we want to. It is whats put us at the top of the food chain and brought us as a species to where we are today. Machines could never be made that surpass our own intelligence. Thats like saying someday we as a species could out smart God or mother nature. I do not ever see that happening not in a million,trillion years.

Answer 4

You are mixing up two different things: natural evolution and development of the human society. And identify evil with selfishness, which is not true. Anyway, selfishness and "caring and sharing" are both products of the evolution, both strategies have their pros and cons and most of successful survivors have mixed strategy. Human is a "social animal" and this is one of the greatest advantages of our species. Social interaction and helpfulness are important for surviving of individual as well as the society. Yes, you find also selfish parasites, but their counts must be in balance with "good guys". See game theory (e.g. wikipedia).

About evolution: it's not a one winner game. And good attributes of the mammals did not suffice to dinosaurs to die off - natural catastrophe had to help them. I think there is greater probability for us to extinct as a consequence of our ecological ignorance than any war of robots.

Well, sci-fi is nice, but it's not about reliable predicting of the future. It's just playing with ideas "What would happen if..."

Answer 5

Not evil, rather a more general egocentrism. Evil is an egocentrism where you absolutely don't care who gets hurt. If one were like that, I think you run the risk of being killed in revenge by a group.

We don't want to eliminate what is weaker than us, we just want our needs met. If someone is in the way, they might be in trouble.

Answer 6

you like typing dont you?