Re: Apple II: Second Best Tech Product of All Time!

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <b7SdnexhIqAsxLzbnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:

> mdj wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 6:38 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Apologies for the delay in reply - temporal entropy ;-)
>> 
>> 
>>>>I'd substitute "in charge of" with "capable of". I'll also say that
>>>>when viewed holistically, human civilisation gives the impression of
>>>>being chaotic, perpetuating the idea of evolution as a constant. But
>>>>where some see a continuation of that chaotic process, I see an
>>>>emergence of order from that chaos. At least *potentially* ...
>>>
>>>So do I.
>>>
>>>Since "in charge of" includes the case of screwing it up, I fail to
>>>see the distinction intended by "capable of".
>> 
>> The distinction is the choice to accept accountability or ignore it.
>> There's an awful lot of denial going on in the human race about both
>> the magnitude of our influence *and* our responsibility for that
>> influence. And while you're correct that the responsibility exists
>> regardless of our choices, the choice still remains, as does our
>> freedom to make it.
> 
> But it is a *fact* that we are now responsible for our evolution,
> and choosing to ignore it is no defense, its just choosing not to
> choose.  This abdication will not last a decade.

Responslble against whom?  Perhaps you respond: "against all of
mankind".  OK, but which parts of mankind are then responsible?  If
you say "all of us", that's no different really from "none of us".

The mechanisms involved here are too complex to be modelled in
a common "responsibility model".

>> Didn't we already agree that evolutionary forces no longer act on our
>> species? ;-)
>> 
>> I think it's important in a discussion such as this to constrain the
>> use of the word evolution to its biological sense. It's otherwise
>> difficult to determine whether someone is simply referring to change,
>> or inferring that change in a particular system is governed by the
>> same rules as biological evolution.
> 
> Fair enough, and a good distinction.
> 
> What I meant, though, is that some biological evolutionary forces
> continue to operate, but their effect is swamped by human actions.

Why do you consider human actions non-biological?  Aren't we part
of the Earth's biology?

The beaver builds its hoods - that's natural.  But when humans build
a house it's no longer natural, it's artificial.  How come?



>>>>To imply that human action is speeding the course of evolution is to
>>>>imply it actually has a course and speed, and I contend that this is a
>>>>purely human conceit, based on no other evidence than the fact that we
>>>>are here.
>>>
>>>No, a chaotic system can be speeded, too--consider Brownian motion
>>>and increased temperature.  Speed does not imply net direction.
>> 
>> 
>> Okay, but my point is, surely the rate of change of a biological
>> system is governed as much (if not solely) by the reproductive rate of
>> its inhabitants? A measure of "speed" that includes only rate of
>> selection can only be used to predict change in size, and as such is
>> no measure of speed.
>> 
>> Indeed, humans appear to be living longer and breeding later, creating
>> a net slowing of their reproductive rate. That has a slow down effect
>> on evolution holistically.
>> 
>> So the implication that it's "speeding up" seems to me to be false.
> 
> OK, I see your concern.
> 
> Part of the problem is the ambiguous use of "evolution", when "change"
> is, perhaps, the more precise term.
> 
> Humans are now changing humans more rapidly than they changed in
> the past.  Some of this change is genetic, and in the next few
> decades, much more will be genetic.
> 
> Even in the area of "natural" genetics, the vastly increased
> communication between the disparate families of humanity in the
> modern world is causing an unprecedented stirring of the genetic pool.

I'm sorry, but human evolution doesn't act quite that rapidly.  A
number of generations have to pass first, snd since one human
generation is some 20-30 years, we're here talking in the time scale
of centuries or perhaps a millennium or two, not decades.  However,
from an evolutionary point of view, that's very rapid too, even though
many people in modern society would consider several centuries to be
"forever".

> As an eternally optimistic pragmatist, I see signs that we are beginning
> to open our eyes...  Somewhere along the line we will have to deal with
> the problem that so many are trying to close them.

The optimist believes we live in the best of worlds.  The pessimist fears
that the optimist is right....  :-)

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Grev Turegatan 40,  SE-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW:     http://stjarnhimlen.se/