Text 492, 213 rader
Skriven 2004-10-23 16:42:00 av Michael Ragland (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: The uncertainty of ev
=================================




From: ragland66@webtv.net (Michael Ragland) 
MR:
But she is a peace activist giving a speech about evolution and not a
scientist. 

RM:
Human beings using the English language are supposed to use words in
meaningful consistent ways if they are to communicate honestly. Are you
saying a peace activist is not a human being, or is not using English,
or is not trying to communicate honestly? 
She seems to be like Helen Caldicott who ambiguously used the word
"nuke" to mean either thermonuclear weapons or nuclear-fission power
plants, using the weapons definition to get her audience to agree
"nukes" are bad and should be abolished, but then switching definitions
to claim therefore nuclear power plants should be abolished. 
With peace activists like these two women, who needs enemies?? I'd just
as soon the peace movement be rid of such people and have only clear
thinking honest talking people who don't switch definitions to lie to
their audience. We don't need lies to promote peace. 

MR:
Mr. Mass I "honestly" believe you are being anally retentive on this
matter. I can see no compromise or concession in the form of an
explanation of Hanna Newcomb's opening line will satisy you. You have a
fire under your ass whose glowing red embers are never extinguished.

RM:
And what business does she have giving a speech on the topic of
"evolution" when she isn't clear what the topic of the speech is
supposed to be (biological definiton of the word, or other less specific
usages)? What exactly do you mean when you say "giving a speech about
evolution"? Do you mean she was giving a speech about some topic related
to one particular meaning of the word, and stupidly mixed in the other
meanings in the quoted statement? Or do you mean she was discussing the
various usages of the word to mean different things? Or she was totally
confused, giving a speech about some confused mixup of the various
meanings as if they all meant the same thing? Or was she merely
discussing various kinds of change in the Universe and it's unfortunate
that she used the word "evolution" at all? Saying the topic was
evolution doesn't make it clear what the topic was since the word has
different meanings which respectively would denote different topics that
each would fit the same word.

MR:
The title of Hanna Newcomb's article was "The Uncertainty of Evolution".
She discussed other topics such as entropy, other life in the universe,
etc. but it was clear to me her main thrust concerned the uncertainty of
evolution. 

For Example, she states, "Social-cultural evolution in human societies
(taking a huge leap forward) is about a million times faster than
biological evolution, because we can deliberately direct it to suit our
purposes and intentions, and because we can transmit innovations across
generations to our descendents. In other words, social evolution is
Lamarkian, no longer Darwinian." 

She elaborates, "Perhaps it is too fast; there is not enough time for
consolidation, for "sober second thought". We are becoming capable of
controlling genetic evolution itself, perhaps to our detriment; we need
to slow down and think. Even through-out human history and pre-history,
there has been a marked acceleration of change (to agricultural to
industrial to technological evolution), not all of it always beneficial,
sometimes harmful to the environment, our "prime real estate". (Even
agriculture has drawbacks compared to hunting and gathering culture,
although it allowed a great expansion of human population, again
possibly too great.)" I think all of these examples are illustrative of
the uncertainty of evolution, its benefits and detriments. 

Now obviously the human species isn't yet becoming capable of
controlling genetic evolution itself (not with people at least) but
given the continued advances in science and technology that possibility
may loom in the future. As Ms. Newcomb remarks, "Even thoughout human
history and prehistory, there has been a marked acceleration of change
to agricultural to industrial to technological evolution (post
industrial advances), not all of it always beneficial, sometimes harmful
to the environment. As she notes, "Even agriculture has drawbacks
compared to hunting and gathering culture, although it allowed a great
expansion of human population, again possibily too great."

Hanna Newcomb isn't referring strictly to Darwinian evolution but to
social- cultural evolution when she writes, "Social-cultural evolution
in human societies (taking a huge leap forward) is about a million times
faster than biological evolution, because we can deliberately direct it
to suit our purposes and intentions, and because we can transmit
innovations across generations to our descendents. In other words,
social evolution is Lamarkian, no longer Darwinian." 

She elaborates, "Perhaps it is too fast; there is not enough time for
consolidation, for "sober second thought". This mirrors the statement by
Stephen Hawking, "It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
survival value. Bacteria do quite well without it." 

She opines, "Also, social-cultural evolution lags behind techno-logical
evolution, and our moral-ethical evolution is even more retarded. If
human society is to spontaneously self-organize as life on earth once
did, and as general chemical systems can sometimes do, these lags must
be repaired. This may involve slowing down the technology so that we can
catch up."

I understand Hanna's perspective but I think the gap between our
social-cultural evolution and biological evolution e.g. to use her words
social cultural evolution is about a million times faster than
biological evolution (try to compute that numerically with a computer if
you can determine how molecularly fast human evolution is), because we
can deliberately direct it to suit our purposes and intentions, and
because we can transmit innovations across generations to our
descendents still means nevertheless social-cultural evolution lags
behind technological evolution (as witnessed by the Industrial
Revolution and the Biotechnology Revolution which really hasn't advanced
to the point where it will have major effects on human societies but
already the possibility of human cloning, human genetic engineering,
etc. shows how our social-cultural evolution lags behind our
technological evolution) and our moral ethical evolution is still even
more retarded.  

Despite the fact social-cultural evolution has been and is much faster
than our biological evolution technological evolution nevertheless has
made  signifigant technological strides e.g. agricultural advances,
Industrial advances, Biotechnology advances, Computer advances, etc.
However, in some quarters traditional moral ethics teach "Creationism"
in some U.S. schools and the Roman Catholic Church's (Vatican) position
on issues such as stem cell research, abortion, human cloning, genetic
engineering, birth control, etc. has been firmly and steadfastly
negative on all of these. In other words they should not be allowed on
humans. To take such a broad unequivocal simpleminded stance on all
these technologies does represent our traditional moral ethical      
evolution is indeed more retarded than our social-cultural evolution and
technological evolution.

Now one can argue social-cultural evolution and technological evolution
are one and the same thing but they aren't. They are, however, related.
As Hanna Newcomb states, "Evolution proceeds through crisis stages, when
fluctuations accumulate and make the structure unstable; it can then
flip either to a more stable (usually more complex) configuration or
collapse - go to breakthrough or breakdown. We do live in a crisis, in
"interesting times", according to an old Chinese curse. But the Chinese
symbol for crisis also reminds us that a crisis is both a danger and an
opportunity. In this context, I don't think Newcomb is referring
specifically to just biological evolution but also to social-cultural
evolution, technological evolution and moral-ethical evolution (which
really is a part of social cultural evolution and for that matter
technological revolution is a part of social-cultural evolution although
the gulf between social-cultural evolution and technology is much wider
than the gulf between social-cultural evolution and our morals and
ethics or lack thereof. 

Hanna Newcombe states, "If human society is to spontaneously
self-organize as life on earth once did, and as general chemical systems
can sometimes do, these lags must be repaired. This may involve slowing
down the technology so that we can catch up." I disagree. I tend to see
the human species as an emergency patient close to death who unless
receives  DNA intervention is bound to succumb. IMHO the technology
isn't the root of the problem in these lags which need to be repaired.
The root of the problem is our biology.

Even if the Luddites managed in slowing down advances in biotechnology
it would be too late to repair the lags or possibly even the species as
the multiple genies have already been let out of their bottles. Many
governments probably will ban genetic engineering of humans but some
scientists will proceed anyway. The question is (assuming one
acknowledges the root of our problem is our biology or Darwinian
evolution) will advances in genetic engineering of humans occur fast
enough and will the widespread application of such genetic engineering
applications occur quickly enough (on par with historic efforts at small
pox vaccination as an analogy) to prevent the human species from
descending into another bleak centuries long Dark Ages as a result of
Nuclear Armageddon or a deadly extremely contagious virus which has no
known vaccine. Or worse, the theoretical possibilty the human species
may end up destroyed with no descendants. It has happenned to other
species in the evolutionary past and currently due to man there is a
sixth mass extinction of species. 

So I disagree with Hanna Newcomb about slowing down technology. As
Hawking mentioned we are in an external transition phase in our
evolution and there are going to be upheavals and mini-cataclysms
whether technology is slowed down or not. You cannot have an external
transition phase without there being massive disruption. The way I look
at it the more technology is speeded up and applied to humans
(especially genetic engineering) the better our chances of coming out of
the external transition phase and surviving.

But back to the original point which was "The Uncertainty of Evolution".
I think Hanna Newcombe's article was germane to this. In other words,
that is what she was essentially writing about. It wasn't about a
biological definition of evolution. It wasn't about the universe. It
wasn't about entropy. She mentioned some of these things but the title
and thesis of her paper was about the uncertainty of evolution (not
mentioning the biological but
social-cultural/technological/moral-ethical aspects of "evolution" and
the "lags" between them and proposing her own ideas of how to repair
such lags so there is an efficient self-organizing human society. I
disagree with her idea of slowing down technology but IMHO she made her
case for the uncertainty of evolution.

Just out of curiousity are you a misogynist?

 

"It's uncertain whether intelligence has any long term survival value.
Bacteria do quite well with it."

Stephen Hawking
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/23/04 4:42:34 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)