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

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

mdj wrote:

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' ?


Yes, if they persist in ignorance and active obstruction.


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.


But we are capable of whatever the most capable individual is
capable of.  Thus we say that humans have harnessed nuclear energy.


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.


Exactly--and those who realize this should awake to their
responsibility.

We need to apply some real creativity and innovation to spreading
the word about what we now understand and what can be done.  It is
non-trivial to overcome denial, regardless of its source.


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.


My notion was that, at least in the US, the pendulum has swung so
far in the direction of ignorance that it is now destined to swing
back at least as far.  (I worry a bit about "backlash".)

The hoped-for benefits of genetic research are sufficiently
compelling for most people, that I expect it to get a big push
within the next few years.


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.


I also agree.  But getting "self-fulfilled" without reference to
objective accomplishment is also a trap.  As we now know, there are
drugs that will make you transcendently happy but unable to repair
an engine.

I think we all know that Maslow didn't have that kind of empty
"fulfillment" in mind, but who knows what our history has predisposed
us to seek?

Isn't it time to take charge of our minds, and make them, and their
emotions, want what we judge to be objectivly desireable?

Self-discipline has been universally praised as a great virtue,
but isn't it time to tame our undisciplined nature to make it
so that it doesn't take a 5-sigma individual to achieve high
levels of self-discipline?


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.


Most of the alterations in the last century have been unprecedented
hybridizations across disparate geographies.  This is actually a huge
change whose effects will become manifest in the next century.

But the "artifical" changes to come will be largely produced by
recombinant DNA carried by viruses into humans.  At first it will
be directed at correcting errors, like color blindness and hemophilia,
but "enhancements" are also inevitable.

Meanwhile, brain science will continue to advance, having finally
found its molecular basis.

And silicon technology will also continue to advance, fueled by an
insatiable desire for entertainment.  ;-)



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?


Doing anything excessively leads to warped perceptions.  An optimist
hopes for a useful warping.  ;-)

Most great doctors, scientists, educators, etc., are obsessive-
compulsive.  We now know that engineers are relatively high on the
autism spectrum--they're hyper-systematizers.

Everything is good for something!

-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."