> Most human brains and bodies are good enough for most human purposes.
The difference is that we know how general purpose computers work. We literally know exactly how they work due to the fact that we built them, but also we have developed very useful abstractions for how to use them. We do not have an equivalent understanding of human behavior.
Humans are not general purpose computing devices that we know how to program. Humans are extremely complex systems that are already running software and we don’t understand that software. We’re engaged in black box debugging and we are nowhere close to actually understanding the software running on the box (and we’re little closer to understanding the hardware).
We don't understand fluid dynamics either; doesn't stop us from modelling it.
Also, I wasn't trying to equate computers and brains, or ideas and software. I just picked the example to show how “post-genome” can make sense as an idea. It's not an applicable analogy.
That’s right. We do not fully understand fluid dynamics. We are still trying to model it. And we are certainly not “post fluid dynamics” even though we successfully send water through pipes and put planes into the air.
We are “post-molecules” for most fluid dynamics behaviour. Though I don't see how fluid dynamics is relevant, here; I'm using these as examples where your general argument falls down, not analogies.
I didn’t make a general argument. I made a statement about being “post-genome”.
Let’s go back to your original comment:
> Modern computing is “post hardware”. That doesn't mean the hardware doesn't matter, or that changes to the hardware don't make a difference; it means describing the hardware is insufficient to describe computers, whereas describing the software is mostly sufficient.
You are correct about software. Describing it is largely sufficient to explain computer behavior.
This is not the case for human behavior. The genome encodes the hardware, but also encodes a ton of critical software (call it firmware?). Even basic needs like eating are not explained by culture/society. More complex behaviors called out in the article are also not explainable solely by cultural influence. Certainly culture influences the gymbro to build muscle, but it cannot be solely that because most people do not build massive amounts of muscle. If culture were solely responsible you’d expect to see this influence people far more evenly. Same for climbing mountains. There’s very little societal push for this. And I mentioned weddings already. You can certainly explain the specifics of weddings culturally. But you cannot explain why people desire to pair bond culturally.
We’re not post genome because we cannot explain most human behavior by looking solely at cultural influences.
The difference is that we know how general purpose computers work. We literally know exactly how they work due to the fact that we built them, but also we have developed very useful abstractions for how to use them. We do not have an equivalent understanding of human behavior.
Humans are not general purpose computing devices that we know how to program. Humans are extremely complex systems that are already running software and we don’t understand that software. We’re engaged in black box debugging and we are nowhere close to actually understanding the software running on the box (and we’re little closer to understanding the hardware).