This is true, but one could make an argument that survival is the highest good and therefore "selected for" defines good in the long termhttps://twitter.com/sentientist/status/879465002557722624 …
-
-
It's an interesting question but ultimately one for philosophical exploration
-
This is all time and context bound.
-
Let's say you are a "good" twitter account. One day you will die and it will end. Was it "not good" because it didn't survive ?
-
It was "good" and will always "have been good" (the latter in a cosmic sense) but simply won't exist in future points if time.
-
Haha this is getting meta

-
Sure, I mean, I don't really want to say that the dinosaurs are "not good" because they didn't survive. But getting eliminated seems bad...
-
getting eliminated proves a narrow case like "not good at surviving a nuclear winter caused by a meteor strike"
-
...but a general "state of goodness" or "inherent goodness" sort-of thing can't really be determined solely based on survival or propagation
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
sometimes self-sacrifice is a subjective "good", and it results in elimination, but (continue)
-
but not be "good" compared with other multiverses where the situation that resulted in self sacrifice never arose. (time/context dependent)
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.