What is Good? Antiruin and Nonabsolutism

When talking about definitions of good, it may be one’s first instinct to reach for philosophy.But there is a fairly obvious conception of good which is a simple extension of the evolutionary “survival” objective.Evolutionarily, every organism is in competition for finite resources, and those which fit their environment best are those which tend to exist for longer.We would like an advanced civilisation that lasts a long time. Our civilisation is already collapsing due to a lack of knowledge and wisdom transfer. So it is unlikely to last much longer in its current form.The survival objective, conceived narrowly, is about avoiding ruin for as long as possible. Ruin is the situation where you “no longer get to play,” permanent death, in other words. Evolution merely says, tautologically, that which is best at causing itself to exist in the next time interval will exist more in total, if you add up all the time intervals.But thinking in terms of “survival” is limiting, because it’s binary. It can work for an “at least this much” fitness function, but ultimately there must be a greater basis for action which results in “more survival.” This is antiruin - action taken in opposition to the direction of ruin.The basic statistical fact is that if you make a habit of betting everything on less-than-sure-things, you will be ruined with probability approaching 1.This produces a simple signal for good: it is actions which are non-probabilistically antiruinous. That is, opposed to the direction of ruin, which every organism is in by default, considering that it costs constant energy input just to continue existing.So a better, and more general and reliable way of thinking about good is as actions which are definitely not bad.This has wide-reaching implications. For example, the Repugnant Conclusion is easy to reject: It’s bad because it’s not definitely not bad. This accords with a common-sense understanding.Online, I feel there is something of disdain for deontological theories