The Future of Human Evolution, The Modern Chicken Evolution

In The Future of Human Evolution (2004), Nick Bostrom argued that there are two possible ways for future evolution of humans to result in a bad end for humans, because what end up being evolutionarily fit is not "nice". Two possible bad outcomes:

Scenario I: The Mindless Outsourcers.  

Competitive uploads begin outsourcing increasing portions of their functionality: “Why do I need to know arithmetic when I can buy time on Arithmetic-Modules Inc. whenever I need to do my accounts?  Why do I need to be good with language when I can hire a professional language module to articulate my thoughts?  Why do I need to bother with making decisions about my personal life when there are certified executive-modules that can scan my goal structure and manage my assets so as best to fulfill my goals?”  Some uploads might prefer to retain most of their functionality and handle tasks themselves that could be more efficiently done by others.  They would be like hobbyists who enjoy growing their own vegetables or knitting their own cardigans; but they would be less efficient than some other uploads, and they would consequently be outcompeted over time.

We can thus imagine a technologically highly advanced society, containing many sorts of complex structures, some of which are much smarter and more intricate than anything that exists today, in which there would nevertheless be a complete absence of any type of being whose welfare has moral significance.  In a sense, this would be an uninhabited society.  All the kinds of being that we care even remotely about would have vanished.

Let's Read: Homo Deus (2015), by Yuval Noah Harari, Part 3

Part 3: Homo Sapiens lose control

Chap 8: The Time Bomb in the Laboratory

Liberal humanism assumes every human has a free, unified self. It's threatened by scientific discoveries that suggest that such a self doesn't exist.

Split brain humans seem to have two selves. The experiencing self and the narrating self has different ideas as to what's good in life. For example in childbirth, the experiencing self suffers horribly, but the narrating self feels like it's a great plot event. 

The self that gets into the books and into the stories is the narrating self; the experiencing self doesn't make stories. If someone says "I did this", it's the narrating self speaking. The idea of a single free self is a myth made by the narrating self, and is full of errors just like all its other stories.

We identify with the inner system that takes the crazy chaos of life and spins out of it seemingly logical and consistent yarns. It doesn’t matter that the plot is full of lies and lacunas, and that it is rewritten again and again, so that today’s story flatly contradicts yesterday’s; the important thing is that we always retain the feeling that we have a single unchanging identity from birth to death (and perhaps even beyond the grave).