[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Paul Schlyter wrote:

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".


I wasn't speaking in terms of a "responsibility model".  I simply
meant that we can now do something about it, and if we don't, then
we have chosen the consequences by our inaction.

Maybe the right way to look at is that we are "responsible to our
children".  (Aiming to "look good" to the future is an interesting
way to shift to a longer-term perspective.)


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?


Another very interesting point!

I think the distinction is that we choose our actions on the basis
of deliberation and planning, and are not *simply* triggered to
perform a hard-wired behavior.  (And yes, I'll even grant some
creativity to beavers, but all beaver dams are really quite similar,
and have been for centuries.  I'll change where I draw the line when
a beaver installs 802.11g networking.  ;-)


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".


I was referring to the unsuitability of modern "stirred" populations
for doing genetic migration analysis.  There are few "purebred" locals
anymore, so scientists have to go out of the cities to try to find them.

Our DNA is much more "mixed" than our grandparents'--that's easy travel
and urbanization for you.


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....  :-)


I think that the optimism/pessimisim distinction is best revealed by
the perceived sign of the first derivative, not the value itself.

-michael

NadaNet networking for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."