Right - but, if you read the article, the author then comes up with some examples of human-net improvements that don't seem to have any downsides (that outweigh the improvements), that could have evolved, and do seem to have a significant net benefits. They then go to argue _why_ these may not have evolved (new conditions, new values, etc...)
That's what makes the article interesting - is there are exceptions to Algernons's law.
Analyzing and debating the "exceptions" to the "law" is what I'm calling "validating". I just don't really understand what makes the premise valuable enough to deliberate over when there's a simple, straightforward, boring explanation for the same phenomena.
It think it is because these are transhumanists. They want these things to be true. They would like to live in a science-fiction world, not in a straightforward, boring, stuff-is-hard world.
I was trying not to be too personal, but I do basically agree with you. I dearly adore transhumanist fiction, but their real-world philosophy seems to boil down to pretending that the fiction is real. One hesitates to compare them in that respect to Trekkies, but there the comparison stands.
That's what makes the article interesting - is there are exceptions to Algernons's law.