[[Selection pressures affect the ability of an organism or other entity to survive and reproduce]]. As a first cut: [[Moral ideals are constrained by selection pressures]]. For example: anti-natalism seems unlikely to become a mass movement, because: 1. People who share those values will have fewer descendants than those who don't. 2. Anti-natalist values seem unlikely to saturate the population fast enough to offset the difference in reproduction rate [^1]. [^1]: As [[David Pearce]] has put it, "the future belongs to fanatical life-lovers". However, [[There is a lot of contingency in natural selection]]. This suggests that a well-aimed memetic intervention can reshape the local fitness landscape for humans. Indeed, I think we've seen many historical examples of this. A couple that come to mind: - [Tithing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe): do this if you want to be part of our group (and gain the advantages). - [The Stasi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi): your duty is to inform on fellow citizens and if you don't, you'll be in trouble. - Abolition of slavery: economic advantage was eventually outweighed by social disadvantage (and, perhaps, the economic disadvantage that came along with that?)[^2]. - ... [^2]: Citation needed The basic mechanism is: 1. Seed the population with a "viral" norm. 2. Profit! Over the very long run, we might expect selection pressures to lead to [[Value convergence]], but I think the jury is out on that one. The future might just be very "up for grabs", _despite_ the constraints of selection pressures. Selection and convergence take place at different levels—within groups, within the international community, or perhaps within galaxy clusters. Perhaps we'll encounter alien civilisations, or various kinds of extinction risk, and selection pressures will kick off again at a higher level.