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

[pausch@saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <VdSdnRuqzrtp_7nbnZ2dnUVZ_uuqnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Michael J. Mahon <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:

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

The problem is that whatever actions we choose (including the
alternative "no action"), we cannot fully predict the consequences of
our choice of actions.  So whatever we choose, we don't really know
what wedve chosen until afterwards.  It's a bit like a lottery.

> 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.)

Otoh our children will be faced with a similar situation when their
time come: they have to play the same lottery in order to try to "look
good" to *their* children....

Btw, if you're serious about what you said earlier: "But it is a
*fact* that we are now responsible for our evolution", what do you
think we should do to significantly improve our gene pool?  Kill off
those who have genetic defects?  We do that to our pets, our
cattle and our crop....

>>>>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.  ;-)

Why do you require that the beavers should copy our designs?  Wouldn't
it be more creative of them to invent a wireless network of their own?
It needn't work on radio waves, any wireless communication would do  ;-)

Btw we humans, as well as many animals, have had wireless communication
for ages -- it's called speech/hearing and vision.....  ;-)

>>> 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.

The differences between the human races seem quite small though if we
compare with e.g. the races of our dogs....

>>>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.

If we lived in the best of worlds, the derivative of the near future
must be negative (or at least zero) and the pessimist would probably
be right.  Because if the derivative of the near future was to be
positive, then the future would become better.  Which means today's
world cannot be the best of worlds.  Right?

> -michael

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