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

["mdj" <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

On Apr 15, 8:45 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:

> >>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.

But the responsibility exists only in the choice, and the choice only
in the awareness. Indeed, choosing to ignore it is not the only case;
a sizeable proportion of the human population posesses neither the
education, nor (potentially) the intellect required to process it. So,
is it an intellectual prejudice to assume that those in denial
constitute the largest part of the 'problem' ?

Since the human populace does not holistically demonstrate such
awareness, I don't feel it can be labelled "in charge". And further,
while I agree that such an abstraction yields a conclusion that is
obstensibly correct, it also serves to block the visibility of a
profound truth: that it is the *responsibility* of the enlightened, to
enlighten.

Indeed, by posessing the enlightenment and not acting upon it we
impose upon ourselves our own form of denial, the net effect of which,
pragmatically speaking, is the same or *worse* than those that "don't
act" out of ignorance, which makes job number one ridding ourselves of
our own apathy.

I'm unsure why you feel this abdication will not last a decade, but
can only assume you're predicting the onset of a large enough scale
"consequence" that will "knock some sense" into us. This may of course
happen, but my own optimism leads me to favour proactive change over
reactive change, and the fact that history is littered with great
civilisations that inexplicably vanished leads me to trepidation when
I invisage such an event.

> The key to motion on this issue is the fact that accepting
> responsibility provides leverage to affect survival, and almost
> everyone wants to survive more than they want to believe something.
> (There are a few who have this wired up backwards, but they are
> a small minority.)

:-)

> > 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.

<< big snip >>

> >>>Speeding where exactly? :-)
>
> >>>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.

I really do feel it's a particularly insidious isomorphism, since it
potentially prevents the application of a more appropriate isomorphism
for holistic human behavior, like for example, Maslow's hierarchy of
human needs. It seems to me that since evolutionary force is
diminished, and human behavioral force increased, that this is far
more appropriate meta-model, and one that contains insights into both
the "problem" and "getting there" that are not present in more
popularist views.

> 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.

Of course, pre-utero and in-utero eugenics *could* play a significant
role in noticably altering the human genome, but for the moment it's a
statistically insignificant activity.

> > Well, one metaphor for my point of view would be to make "intelligent
> > design" fire, and "popular science" a source of fuel. A lot of the
> > supposed 'debate' can be avoided by a treatise on the philosophy and
> > methodology of science, which is curiously and unfortunately missing
> > from many education systems.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> Part of the problem is that so few teachers are qualified to teach
> critical thinking, let alone the scientific method.
>
> And few school boards would permit it to be properly taught!
>
> There is work to do...

An awful lot, yes.

> >>We will not wait to find out the results if we took our hands off the
> >>wheel, because we will keep driving.  Until further notice (say, by an
> >>asteroid that we can't divert), *we* are responsible for the stability
> >>of the planet, including its biome.
>
> > I suspect that some of these differences in viewpoint come from a
> > difference in underlying philosophy. You seem to have the viewpoint of
> > a 'hard' pragmatist, ie. that taking hands off the wheel is the same
> > as driving in the dark, headlights off, with a drunken navigator ;-)
>
> ;-)
>
> > While the likely result is the same, the latter scenario still places
> > an intelligent agent in control of the car, so the potential outcome
> > is different :-)
>
> Leadership is always a problem. (!)
>
> Since we always have the leaders we deserve, we need to work hard
> on education, so that we deserve better.

I'll chase the tail of this in other strands of thread....

> > Considering that the planet can get along just fine without us, we're
> > effectively obliged to either take responsibility for our actions or
> > have 'nature' do it, resulting in our extinction. Or to put another
> > way we either stop behaving like an group of simplistic organisms and
> > more like enlightened self-responsible entities or we'll most
> > definitely find ourselves 'naturally selected' :-)
>
> Bingo.
>
> 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.

Don't you feel that excessive application of pragmatism leads to a
pessimistic view?

Matt