Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 16:45:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jennifer L. Dailey-O'Cain" (jenniedo@intranet.org)
Subject: Re: 1/3
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
"Hmmmmmm, I just thought about this some more and realized I might have misunderstood you. When you said: "Tampering with evolution", I thought you meant the direct tampering that the vorlons/shadows are hinted to have done to humans to cause telepaths to appear. Direct genetic tampering."
The *Vorlons* have done that. The *Shadows* have not.
---
Jennie Dailey-O'Cain
jenniedo@umich.edu
University of Michigan
Germanic Linguistics
From airyn@us.itd.umich.edu Wed Oct 16 18:54:23 1996
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
"You misunderstand. I'm talking about the broad theme of "Tampering
with
evolution". Period. Not as "how Hitler tried to tamper with evolution" or
"how the shadows are trying to tamper with evolution"."
i do understand, it's just that everything is all tied together. with an
issue like this, it's really difficult to separate the methods from the
motives...intellectually, piece o'cake...emotionally, however, it's
another story.
"When I said "what's wrong with it?" above, I meant "what is wrong
with
the basic concept of tampering with evolution in general?". From your
earlier message, I got the impression that you were against the whole
concept. From some of your comments below, I think you are actually more
against the methods people have used to attempt to implement this idea,
rather than the idea itself."
in general, it's intentions. i think the conscious meddling with evolution
or natural processes is a Bad Idea. take this down to whatever level you
like, i'll likely hold that line. in our society, it's hard to go back to
*not* meddling, though.
i'd take us all back to the days of loinclothes and mammoth hunting if i
could, and let the chips fall where they may. life is too complex now.
"Mass genocide is a "method", which I'm most certainly not
endorsing."
heh. really? ;)
Airyn continued:
"very true. but it's the "why" not the "how" that i guess i'm really,
truly
concerned with. but the how also applies -- i guess the "how" is more of a
factor when it's something that causes pain or harm in whatever sense to
however many creatures. if the "how" is beneficial to the individuals
experiencing it, then it's fine."
heh! in today's society, yes. basically. but in general, i'm not at all
for deliberate tampering. (notice how i keep using the word "deliberate"
-- that's important for me.)
"The trick is, how do you define "beneficial" and whose definition do
you
use? If you nurse a lion back to health, and then the lion proceeds to eat
50 gazelles over the next 5 years, those gazelles arn't going to thank
you. :-)"
well exactly. i tend to look at it on an individual basis. if the lion's
been shot or hit by a car or whatever, then that's interference on
humanity's part, and i feel that fixing it is "ok." the lion then going
out to kill the gazelles is natural. if the lion is sick and dying, then
it will pain me to watch it die, but that's also natural, and "ok."
"When a doctor gives an 8 year old a vacination, all the 8 year old
knows, is
that it hurts. Given the choice, the 8 year old would always refuse it.
Does that stop the doctor? No, because he knows it's in the 8 year old's
greater interest."
rightio. but we didn't have vaccinations "back in the day," we didn't need
them. we're overpopulated, so now we do. this smells like it's going to
launch me off on a big sociology kick, huh? better quit while we're all
ahead. :)
"Actually, I tend to agree with almost all of what you say, but this
is
such a complex issue, that I like to explore all sides of a problem."
absolutely! gotta figger these things out somehow. and nothing's more
boring then a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other. if
we don't challenge each other, then why bother? (grin)
Airyn K. Darling
From airyn@us.itd.umich.edu Wed Oct 16 19:16:41 1996
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
Airyn wrote:
"rightio. but we didn't have vaccinations "back in the day," we didn't
need
them. we're overpopulated, so now we do. this smells like it's going to
launch me off on a big sociology kick, huh? better quit while we're all
ahead. :)"
Greg wrote:
"Argh. I have to completely disagree with you here on this point. The
"Good
old days" don't exist, they never did. Just because we didn't have a thing,
doesn't mean we couldn't have used the thing, or that the thing wouldn't
have been beneficial."
ah, greg -- i can see you and i have many interesting discussions ahead of
us! we didn't "need" vaccinations, bcuz we were keeping ourselves to the
"right" number of people per square mile of land. plagues are supposed to
come and go. sickness just is. it's a fact o'life. we have stopped being
able to deal with it.
"I could argue the counter, that we don't need vaccines now, becuase
we *do*have too many people. Let's get rid of all the vaccines and let nature take
the race down to a more reasonable number. We're *certainly* not an
endangered species."
i'd have to completely agree with you there. but it would be almost
impossible for me to stare at one, specific, individual child and say
"yes, you should die." that's the hard part.
"On the other day, "back in the day", the human race was much smaller
in
number. People had large families becuase it was normal for many of the
children to die before reaching maturity. Do *you* want to go back to the
days when a woman's job was to be a baby factory so the species could
survive?"
fair enough -- i'm not saying i don't enjoy my life as it is now. i just
think we've veered so completely away from anything that is natural. it's
a pity. women weren't always necessarily baby factories -- i'm not
talking about medieval times, i'm going waaaaaay back, back to tribes.
women were respected and revered, et cetera. well, as far as we can tell
anyhow. looking at indigineous peoples today, it's much the same way. it's
a hard life, but it's so much simpler.
of course, i write this as i sit at my T3 connection, talking about a
science fiction show. i've never once said that i'm not a complete
hypocrite. (grin) i guess i want to have my cake and eat it, too. (have my
spoilers and be surprised, too?)
thanks greg
From airyn@us.itd.umich.edu Wed Oct 16 19:49:07 1996
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
"Neither could I, but you wouldn't have to. Just eliminate the
vaccines
and nature will pull the individual triggers for you. :-)"
absolutely right, but i have to look at things that way -- it's easy for a
person to remove herself from the point of view of the "victims;" i can't
do that, i need to look at it from all angles.
Airyn wrote: "fair enough -- i'm not saying i don't enjoy my life as
it is now. i just
think we've veered so completely away from anything that is natural. it's
a pity. women weren't always necessarily baby factories -- i'm not
talking about medieval times, i'm going waaaaaay, back, back to tribes.
women were respected and revered, et cetera. well, as far as we can tell
anyhow. looking at indigineous peoples today, it's much the same way. it's
a hard life, but it's so much simpler."
Greg wrote: "Ever heard an old Shaker Hymn called _Simple Gifts_?
"Tis a gift to be simple, Tis a gift to be free,
Tis a gift to come down where we ought to be..."
My usual response to that philosophy is one word: "Bullshit."
i see your point. and in certain senses, i even agree with
you. but don't you think there was a lot less bullshit to worry about back
then? "hrm, i wonder where the deer are, what's this bug on my ass," that
kind of thing.
"What is "natural" for us(humans) after we developed a brain, self
awareness,
and free will? What you are describing as "natural". is natural for an animal
who operates entirely by instinct. Once we developed higher faculties it became
"natural" for us to begin using them to solve problems."
there's always this huge debate about what is natural v. unnatural.
perhaps it's natural for us to destroy the environment, i'm not saying
that we're these evil unnatural things. when i say "we're so far removed
from nature," i mean the processes and cycles and rhthyms of it. we're
destroying some very beautiful things. perhaps it's our role in evolution
to destroy the planet? well, ok, i can grudgingly accept that, but i
certainly don't like it. we're causing a tremendous amount of suffering,
and that's the one thing in the world that causes me the most pain -- the
suffering of others.
"I've been down this road before, and the big flaw in your viewpoint
is the
implicit assumption that humans or intelligent-humans are not part
of the
ecosystem, or are unnatural. What happened? Did we fall out of the sky one
day? Did aliens come down and tamper with our DNA? If so, yes, then we are
unnatural. But barring proof of that, I'd have to say that anything a human
can do, is *natural* for the human to do."
no no -- i don't think we're unnatural at all. i think we're evolving down
*one of many possible paths.* i would just like to see us live more in
harmony with the rest of the planet.
"We are just as much a part of nature as the birds and the
trees".
of course!
Airyn wrote: "of course, i write this as i sit at my T3 connection,
talking about a
science fiction show. i've never once said that i'm not a complete
hypocrite. (grin) i guess i want to have my cake and eat it, too. (have my
spoilers and be surprised, too?)"
Greg wrote: "Heh. :-) Perspective is *always* a valuable
quality."
sometimes i lose it, most of the time i just gape at myself -- so many
inconsistencies. ;-)
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 21:56:24 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Heather Coon wrote:
"Excuse me for stepping into the debate (I'm killing time watching the
presidential one...and if you really want my opinion, I'll give it to
you personally, but I'm not posting it!)"
you goon! you're not letting me post? bah! feh, in general. ;)
true -- more objectivity.
"Now, I know you are trying to keep it interesting here, but it
appears
you
are arguing both sides of the fence. What we do tampers with
evolution...
but it's also natural? That sounds like a contraduction. What's your
REAL view???"
i think we both fall on both sides of the fence; there are so many issues
here! it's not just a simple 1/3 or not 1/3 thing for me, and i'll wager
that it's not for greg, either.
Heather (perhaps the biggest addict... er... fan?)
"perhaps?" "PERHAPS?" who are you trying to kid, young ladY?
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 22:02:08 -0400 (EDT)
No, sorry, it's not contradictory. I'm saying that once we developed free
will, it became natural for us to attempt to tamper with our own destiny.
The flaw is your assumption that "tampering with evolution" is obviously
"not natural". Where is that written down? I don't make that assumption.
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 22:23:15 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
"No, sorry, it's not contradictory. I'm saying that once we developed
free
will, it became natural for us to attempt to tamper with our own
destiny.">
"The flaw is your assumption that "tampering with evolution" is
obviously
"not natural". Where is that written down? I don't make that
assumption."
If it's NATURAL... how can it be tampering?
According to Mr. Webster:
OK, maybe I recant... maybe tampering is natural...
*sheepish grin*
heather
From gregc@pm-tech.com Thu Oct 17 04:18:46 1996
Uh, Oh. Now you did it. You got me into long-winded-expository-mode.
Run while you can......
airyn darling
"(deep breath!) i see your point. and in certain senses, i even agree
with
you. but don't you think there was a lot less bullshit to worry about back
then? "hrm, i wonder where the deer are, what's this bug on my ass," that
kind of thing."
"I wonder if we'll have enough to eat tomorrow"
"bullshit to worry about" is relative. If you sat down and thought it
through, you'd be amazed at the amount of bullshit you *don't* have to
worry about from a day-to-day simple existance standpoint, thanks to modern
society. (Need water? Just reach over and turn the faucet.) It's *easy*
to say "we've got all these problems in modern society, let's go back to
the trees and all those problems will go away". Yep, most of them will,
but they will just be replaced by all the problems that we already solved
and then *forgot about*, both as individuals and as a culture. Life, "back
in the days" was *incredibly* hard and difficult.
Besides, what's so great about simplicity and what's wrong with complexity?
I *thrive* on complexity! I think I am very fortunate to live in one of
the most ghod-damndest *interesting* times the planet has ever known! So
many puzzles figured out, so many *new* problems to solve, so many interesting
things to do.
But of course, I'm a technocrat. I'm biased. I understand a great deal of
the new things that make our world complex, alot of people don't. A natural
tendancy is to fear that which you don't understand. So I can see how the
current level of complexity could affect alot of people. I blame it on the
lack of education about the things that make our world complex, not the
complex things themselves.
"there's always this huge debate about what is natural v. unnatural.
perhaps it's natural for us to destroy the environment, i'm not saying
that we're these evil unnatural things. when i say "we're so far removed
from nature," i mean the processes and cycles and rhthyms of it. we're
destroying some very beautiful things. perhaps it's our role in evolution
to destroy the planet?"
That's an interesting point. I was going to say something about it in my
previous mail. A friend of mine wrote an SF novel about the above concept.
He postulated: "What if, just as a chicken consumes the egg and then discards
it after it hatches, the Earth is also an egg? What if it is here to be
consumed and give forth a race than eventually 'hatches' and goes to the
stars and leaves the earth behind?". He also trys to ask, "Is this a good
idea?", "Should we just listen to our genetic programming, or should we
try to override it and make a conscious decision *not* to destroy the Earth?"
The problem with this viewpoint, is that some people try to use it as
justification: "It's preordained in our genes, we can't help ourselves, it's
manifest destiny, etc, etc, ad nauseum". He wasn't doing that, he was simply
postulation the "What If?" and exploring the ramifications of a possibility.
"we're causing a tremendous amount of suffering,
and that's the one thing in the world that causes me the most pain -- the
suffering of others."
Do you think I like to see suffering? I don't. Everytime I see a hungry cat,
I want to take it in. Everytime I see someone or something with a problem, I
want to try to fix it.
But unfortunately, suffering is "natural". Do you think that all animals in
the wild die a quick death? That somebody is there with a euthanasia needle
everytime an animal gets sick? No. A great deal of life dies slowly and
painfully. It's ugly, I don't like it one bit, but I'm not going to pretend
it doesn't happen.
"well, ok, i can grudgingly accept that, but i certainly don't like
it."
Ah, that is interesting. I want to get up on my soapbox and address something
here that's been bugging me. But first, I need to go off into a couple of
meta discussions first: (I warned you).
==========================================
It seems that our race is obsessed with conceptualizing everything from
a dualistic standpoint. Things are "Good & Evil", "Right & Wrong", "Black
& White", "Order & Chaos", "Liberal & Conservative", "Paisely & Plaid", etc.
Many people believe that some of the above are "Basic Forces" in the universe.
My observations are that the universe is none of these. Without human actions
and human observations to give them context, "Good & Evil" do not exist.
They are an entirely human invention. The Wolf is not "evil" when it kills
a bunny-rabbit for food. The Universe is neither malevolent, nor is it
benevolent, it is simply indifferent. The Universe *is*. It is a clockwork
that runs according to a set of rules, if you can figure out the rules, you
can stand a better chance of staying alive. I have a favorite analogy I
use to describe this:
Think of the Universe as a boulder rolling down a hill and humanity all
clustered together in the boulder's path halfway down the hill. The believer
in a malevolent universe doesn't try to get out of the boulder's way becuase
he believes that no matter which way he jumps, the boulder has his name on
it and will just continue to swerve toward him until it gets him.
The believer in a benevolent universe doesn't move either becuase she believes
that the universe won't harm her and that the boulder will go around her
if she just trusts in the goodness of the universe.(I have a true story to
support this one.) The believer in the indifferent universe knows that the
boulder is just obeying basic laws of physics and gravity and if he knows
enough about them and has the *common* *sense* to step out of the boulder's
path, he's got a good chance of staying alive.
==========================================
When I say "truth", I'm not talking about the kind of truth associated with
lying or telling the truth. Such as: "Did you eat the last of the cookies?
tell me the truth!", I'm talking about The-Big-Truths, the answers to
The-Big-Questions, such as: "Why are we here?", "What is the meaning of
life?", "What is love?", "What is consciousness?", "Do souls exist?", "Is
there a God?", "What is love?", "Why do you always get an odd number of
socks out of the dryer?", etc, etc.
For some reason or other, a great deal of people seem to believe that when
the Day-of-Answers arrives, the-trumpet-blows, the bell goes off on the dryer,
when an answer becomes known to one of these big questions, that the answer
will of course be wonderful, glorious, earth-shaking, and beautiful. In short,
it will be a very *nice* answer.
I think this is niave. [See meta discussion #1]. I think the answers to these
questions are going to be scary-assed frightening. Some of them *may* be
nice, but I think alot of them are going to be terrible from the point of
view of human comprehension. "Truth" does NOT imply "niceness".
I think this is one of the reasons that religions were born. I think some
insightful thinkers got a glimpse into these great truths and realized just
how frightening they were. (What if there is NO meaning to life? What if we
got a good solid final answer to that question? Could you handle that? Maybe.
But alot of people couldn't.) Religions give us nice warm snuggly answers to
the questions we see when we get a glimpse into the void. In this, I've come
to admit that they do serve a purpose, in that they give a great many people
*hope* about their existance.
==========================================
We are the product of our past. We carry, buried in our genetic structure,
the past of this planet's biological history. We are the product of billions
of years of total evolution, and millions of years of simian evolution.
Many survival oriented mechanisms appeared and thrived due to "survival
of the fittest".
Those mechanisms didn't go away when we developed a brain and culture.
Amoung those mechanisms was greed and aggression. When Og-The-Bigger came
upon Nog-the-smaller eating a piece of fruit, he didn't wander up and say:
"I say old chap, mind if I have a bite of that pomegranet?". No, most likely
he clubbed Nog senseless and took the fruit from him.
Somewhere along the line, in the process of convincing ourselves that we
were this noble, just, kind race. The sole inheritors of some divine spark
from above, we also convinced ourselves that all the latent tendancies that
enabled us to get where we are now, just somehow "went away".
They didn't. They are still with us in spades. Some members of our race
exhibit them with disturbing ease(go watch a party at a frat house sometime),
but even in the most controlled individuals, it can still surface under
stress.
I'm NOT saying this is necasarily a good thing. But neither is it a good
thing to hide from these tendancies and pretend they just don't exist.
We got where we are through strife and conflict and aggression and greed.
The *BIG* difference is: Now we have a brain and free will. We can
acknowledge that those urges are present in us, but we can make the
*choice* to not act on them. We can say:
We can choose to not do those things, but the *urge* to do them is still with
us, and we ignore it at our own peril.
End of meta discussions.
Whew! Ok, the problem I've seen, time and again, when I'm discussing some
big point of philosophy with someone or a group, is that I inevitably get
an argument that can be boiled down to essentially:
"I would find it personally distasteful/repugnant to live in a
universe where XXXX is true. Therefore, XXXX just can't be true."
End of argument.
The assumption here is that the universe postulated by the opposing
viewpoint is just so "un-nice", that it couldn't possibly be how the
real world works.
After we watched Za'ha'dum(Yes, I'm finnally getting back to B5), it was
postulated that we are, indeed, where we are due to effects of war and
agression and greed down through our history. A number of the opposing
viewpoints took the above form.
Don't misinterpret me here. Do I like this fact? No. Do I think this is
the way it *should* be? No. Do I think this is the way the world *is*? Yes.
You constantly have to make the distinction between what your rose-colored-
glasses tell you the world *should* be, and what it *really* is. Anything
else is just attempts at wish fulfillment.
"no no -- i don't think we're unnatural at all. i think we're evolving
down
*one of many possible paths.* i would just like to see us live more in
harmony with the rest of the planet. "
So would I. It would be *nice* wouldn't it? :-)
Gregc
From airyn@us.itd.umich.edu Thu Oct 17 04:18:50 1996
well this just bloody well sucks. i can't sleep. two hours last night
ought to hold me over all day tomorrow, right? argh.
so guess what/! you guys get to listen to me masturbate my keyboard. whee!
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
"Uh, Oh. Now you did it. You got me into long-winded-expository-mode.
Run while you can......"
AAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGG!!!!
"I wonder if we'll have enough to eat tomorrow"
ok, perhaps "less" wasn't the proper term. "different." but "natural."
*before* you go "ARGH!" at me, let me explain briefly what natural is. if
i can -- i'm nigh-delerious at this point...never mind. i can't formulate
the words. it's this sort of nebulous concept floating about me head. i
feel that people are more capable of dealing with the cycles and trials of
nature than they are the cycles and trials of urban life. nutshell and
rather clumsy, but that's it, more or less.
" "bullshit to worry about" is relative. If you sat down and thought
it
through, you'd be amazed at the amount of bullshit you *don't* have to
worry about from a day-to-day simple existance standpoint, thanks to
modern..."
[snip]
"and then *forgot about*, both as individuals and as a culture. Life,
"back
in the days" was *incredibly* hard and difficult."
back-breaking, soul-destroying work, to quote a dear friend of mine who
lived on a commune of the very primitive sort. but i think some folks
would prefer that to what's generally going on today. personally, i'd want
something in the middle -- living in the middle of nowhere, gardening,
raising horses, walking in the woods, drinking from the stream, and then
coming home to my toyota land cruiser and t1. but htat's just me. i've
bought into a lot of the social processes. (gods but aren't we off-topic!)
"Besides, what's so great about simplicity and what's wrong with
complexity?"
depends on the complexity. the complexity of figuring out when to plant
the corn v. the complexity of 5 o'clock traffic. i'll take the corn in
this instance. i strive for balance in my life -- i don't mind the
tech--stuff. i love it! but i also miss some of the older ways, and i wish
i could strike the proper balance between the two.
"I *thrive* on complexity! I think I am very fortunate to live in one
of
the most ghod-damndest *interesting* times the planet has ever known! So many puzzles figured out, so many *new* problems to solve, so many interesting
things to do."
very true, and i'm thankful for the relative ease of life in many
respects. but i can't help but wonder, "what if." you should understand
that, greg -- i can smell it on you! plus, that's what SF is all about --
it's a whole genre of "what if."
"That's an interesting point. I was going to say something about it
in my
previous mail. A friend of mine wrote an SF novel about the above concept.
He postulated: "What if, just as a chicken consumes the egg and then discards
it after it hatches, the Earth is also an egg? What if it is here to be
consumed and give forth a race than eventually 'hatches' and goes to the
stars and leaves the earth behind?". "
hrm! interesting thought, one i hadn't come up with at all. never crossed
my mind. the thing i have problems with is, why cause unnecessary
suffering in the mean time to fellow creatures? not that i'm so naive that
i think there is no suffering in nature -- note the "unnecessary." i know
it takes life to create life, and i can accept that on a primal sort of
level. i eat meat, and i'm ok with that. the thing that occasionally
bothers me about eating meat the way it's sold today is, there's no
respect or thanks given to the animal that gave up its life. respect is
another big issue for me; the predators respect their prey, i think. not
in an anthropomorphic sense, but they understand the cycles and the
processes. the only process involved with steak these days is generally
pithing the poor beast and letting the machines carve it up. i can see it
coming, and i'm just going to duck, rather than keep going on this. i'll
wait to see what you come back with. ;)
"Do you think I like to see suffering? I don't. Everytime I see a
hungry cat,
I want to take it in. Everytime I see someone or something with a problem, I
want to try to fix it."
i don't think many people like to see suffering at all. but i think a lot
of people are able to block it out, whereas i'm not nearly as good at
that. i see suffering, and i feel it from the sufferer's point of view to
a large extent. it's just the way i've always been -- i can feel other
people's emotions more often than not. no, not in a deanna troi sort of
way, you silly people! i believe it's in our nature to try to help other
people, so when we see suffering, generally, we want to alleviate it if we
can. if we can't help, we tend to tune out. that's probably healthier than
how i go about it, but i think it makes me more aware of the consequences
of things going on around me.
"But unfortunately, suffering is "natural". Do you think that all
animals in
the wild die a quick death? That somebody is there with a euthanasia needle
everytime an animal gets sick? No. A great deal of life dies slowly and
painfully. It's ugly, I don't like it one bit, but I'm not going to pretend
it doesn't happen."
i don't pretend it doesn't happen, either. as i grew up, it was so hard
for me to accept that there is so much pain "in nature." but it exists,
and there you have it.
"Ah, that is interesting. I want to get up on my soapbox and address
something
here that's been bugging me. But first, I need to go off into a couple of
meta discussions first: (I warned you)."
argh! let me go get comfy....ok.
==========================================
It seems that our race is obsessed with conceptualizing everything from
a dualistic standpoint. Things are "Good & Evil", "Right & Wrong", "Black
& White", "Order & Chaos", "Liberal & Conservative", "Paisely & Plaid",
etc."
isn't that the truth! there was a big discussion about this on a mailing
list that i run, and people went at it like you wouldn't believe. i guess
this applies to b5 -- vorlons v. shadows. life is full of greys for me. i
think it's that way for a lot of people in this group as well, but that's
just a guess. a lot of us haven't bought into the traditional roles, and i
think that requires a certain level of not-black-and-white thinking.
Many people believe that some of the above are "Basic Forces" in the
universe.
sure -- some people need that to hang on to, the same way some folks need
to believe in one god(dess) or the other. i was about to say it's pretty
harmless, but then i caught myself. i won't, however, launch into a
tirade on western religion. (and they all breathed a huge sigh of
relief...)
My observations are that the universe is none of these. Without human
actions
and human observations to give them context, "Good & Evil" do not
exist.
They are an entirely human invention.
of course -- we all filter things through our own paradigms, we have to in
order to make sense of the world.
The Wolf is not "evil" when it kills a bunny-rabbit for food.
hey, you've got to give me more credit than that -- do you honestly think
i'm saying "bad, nasty evil wolves?" nope nope nope. i have complete
respect for them. they aren't wasteful, they know how to have families and
to have fun...and i'm launching off on another tangent. sorry. onwards.
The Universe is neither malevolent, nor is it benevolent, it is simply
indifferent. The Universe *is*. It is a clockwork
that runs according to a set of rules, if you can figure out the rules, you
can stand a better chance of staying alive.
i tend to agree with you. with the possible qualification that living
things within the universe can individually be different shades of what we
perceive as good and evil. but the overal mechanism has no thoughts on the
matter, i feel.
I have a favorite analogy I use to describe this:
i like that. i know people on all sides of it.
==========================================
When I say "truth", I'm not talking about the kind of truth associated with
lying or telling the truth. Such as: "Did you eat the last of the
cookies?
another big discussion topic on my other list -- what is truth? basically,
the general concensus was, "There is no whole truth, only individual
perceptions of it." i agree with that on a human level. of course on the
physical universal plane, there are certain truths about what things are
made of and how they spin and such, but physics just isn't my game. we had
to bring it down to what is true for people?
For some reason or other, a great deal of people seem to believe
that when
the Day-of-Answers arrives, the-trumpet-blows, the bell goes off on the dryer,
when an answer becomes known to one of these big questions, that the answer
will of course be wonderful, glorious, earth-shaking, and beautiful. In short,
it will be a very *nice* answer.
heh. "42" comes to mind for no apparent reason...;) (speaking of such
things, greg, i must say -- you're a frood who really know where his towel
is.) (but i digress yet again.) (would you all rather we take this to
private emails?)
I think this is niave. [See meta discussion #1]. I think the answers
to these
questions are going to be scary-assed frightening. Some of them *may* be
nice, but I think alot of them are going to be terrible from the point of
view of human comprehension. "Truth" does NOT imply "niceness".
well of course it doesn't...i could really go off here about "judgment
day" and how certain groups will be just flabbergasted when it all comes
down, but that's really getting off-topic even further.
I think this is one of the reasons that religions were born. I think
some
insightful thinkers got a glimpse into these great truths and realized just
how frightening they were. (What if there is NO meaning to life? What if we
got a good solid final answer to that question? Could you handle that? Maybe.
But alot of people couldn't.)
honestly? i don't know. in the only way i can wrap my mind around it,
which is rather abstractly, i would have to say that generally, i'd be
pretty comfy with it. i could stop worrying about what's "out there" and
just have a bloody good time here. but then there would be the absolute
mortal (MORTAL) terror of knowing that some day, i was just going to snuff
it, and that i would be no more. there's both comfort and abject terror
there. i agree that people often need religion to hang onto.....i *really*
trying to resist the temptation to go off on this!!!! i am!!
==========================================
We are the product of our past. We carry, buried in our genetic structure,
the past of this planet's biological history. We are the product of billions
of years of total evolution, and millions of years of simian
evolution.
yup. sure do. and we're still evolving, we're not done yet. our tibias are
getting smaller and smaller, bcuz we're not chasing after our prey
anymore. those egoists who think they're the final product just kill me.
Many survival oriented mechanisms appeared and thrived due to
"survival of the fittest".
we're almost in danger of getting back on-topic here, greg...the shadows!
Somewhere along the line, in the process of convincing ourselves that
we
were this noble, just, kind race. The sole inheritors of some divine spark
from above, we also convinced ourselves that all the latent tendancies that
enabled us to get where we are now, just somehow "went away".
the thing that creeps me out is, we're truly terrible now. we're less
noble, just and kind than we ever were in many respects, bcuz we're
fooling ourselves into believing we're all of these thigns. at least when
og-the-bigger came up and thwacked nog-the-smaller, he was honest about
it, and didn't make any qualms about doing what he felt like doing. now we
have all of these polite social conventions to fall back upon to reassure
ourselves that we're really so civilized. bullshit.
They didn't. They are still with us in spades. Some members of our
race
>exhibit them with disturbing ease(go watch a party at a frat house
sometime),
i'd rather chew off my own hands, thank you.
but even in the most controlled individuals, it can still surface
under stress.
when we're afraid or hurt, that's when the instincts come back.
I'm NOT saying this is necasarily a good thing. But neither is it a
good thing to hide from these tendancies and pretend they just don't
exist.
so true.
We got where we are through strife and conflict and aggression and
greed.
but also through caring for our young, through loving other people,
creating communities. there is a balance to these things. everything
exists. yin and yang, ping and pong.
The *BIG* difference is: Now we have a brain and free will. We can
acknowledge that those urges are present in us, but we can make the
*choice* to not act on them. We can say:
We can choose to not do those things, but the *urge* to do them is still with
us, and we ignore it at our own peril.
i don't know about it being at our own peril. each day i choose not to
kill the luser on the other end of the phone who doesn't know what kind of
computer he's on, and instead help him figger out what's wrong, i feel
pretty good. the reward for me is the other person's happiness or
gratitude. i like making people happy much more than i like making people
hurt or miserable. not that i don't have those urges and acknowledge them.
i have a vivid fantasy life, full of large, blunt weapons and manacles.
sure, people piss me off, and i react, based in part on those instincts.
but as far as i know, i *like* the way i handle people, generally
speaking. that might make me the monkey that always gets her banana taken
away, but i'd rather live with that than being the taker. daniel quinn's
books, _ishmael_ & _providence_ discuss all of this in a very interesting
way. i recommend both of them for easy but thought-provoking reads.
End of meta discussions.
Whew!
no kidding! it's been awhile since i've done this to this extent. i've
missed it. (evil grin)
Ok, the problem I've seen, time and again, when I'm discussing some
big point of philosophy with someone or a group, is that I inevitably get
an argument that can be boiled down to essentially:
"I would find it personally distasteful/repugnant to live in a
universe where XXXX is true. Therefore, XXXX just can't be true."
End of argument.
that's completely naive in a general sense, but for that person, perhaps
XXXX *doesn't* exist. maybe it doesn't affect him or her, bcuz s/he
refuses to see it. it might actually be affecting that person as far as
other people are concerned, but for that individual, nope. for example:
let's say that a friend of mine has AIDS (which, thankfully, has not yet
happened to my knowledge.) he's in denial. he's convinced that he's being
persecuted by god. for him, every symptom he experiences is going to
reinforce the god thing, no matter what doctors tell him. for him, it's
true.
After we watched Za'ha'dum(Yes, I'm finnally getting back to B5), it
was
yay! full circle at last!!!!
postulated that we are, indeed, where we are due to effects of war
and
agression and greed down through our history. A number of the opposing
viewpoints took the above form.
yes, i recall thinking of "the third man" italy v. switzerland thing. but
i still argue that both have their places. balance!
Don't misinterpret me here. Do I like this fact? No. Do I think this
is
the way it *should* be? No. Do I think this is the way the world *is*? Yes.
*sometimes* it is. we could not exist if there was only conflict and greed
and aggression. we have to have that other stuff, too, otherwise we'd
never cooperate enough to get shit done.
You constantly have to make the distinction between what your
rose-colored-
glasses tell you the world *should* be, and what it *really* is. Anything
else is just attempts at wish fulfillment.
i have to agree. but i think my view of what the world really is like is
quite different from yours, which is cool. otherwise, it'd be a very dull
conversation -- "yeah, isn't this great how right we are?"
So would I. It would be *nice* wouldn't it? :-)
it would truly be a beautiful thing. truly.
cheers,
From mxb@arbortext.com Thu Oct 17 19:03:42 1996
Yes, this is the post-"Z'ha'dum" discussion . . .
Though I'm cutting the leadup meta-discussion . . .
'Cause I just don't have the time to respond bit by bit.
After we watched Za'ha'dum(Yes, I'm finnally getting back to B5), it
was
postulated that we are, indeed, where we are due to effects of war and
agression and greed down through our history. A number of the opposing
viewpoints took the above form.
Don't misinterpret me here. Do I like this fact? No. Do I think this is
the way it *should* be? No. Do I think this is the way the world *is*? Yes.
You constantly have to make the distinction between what your rose-colored-
glasses tell you the world *should* be, and what it *really* is. Anything
else is just attempts at wish fulfillment.
Greg, I'm trying right now to not find this slightly insulting, since I was
one of the most vociferous anti-Shadow participants in that discussion, and
this doesn't even remotely represent what I was saying. I'll try to restate
and clarify.
The argument I heard from Justin was that *war*--not competition, not greed,
not anything other than destruction and bloodshed--*war* was necessary for
the advancement of species. *That's* what I disagree with. Did I read too
much into what he said? Given that most of the Shadows' acts have been
clearly destructive in nature--attacking, supporting the attacks of others
--I don't think so. The only exception I can think of is the infiltration
of Psi Corps, and that was a defensive measure.
I'm all for competition. Hell, I personally have a competitive streak a
mile wide. Aggression? Greed? I don't buy Gordon Gecko's line (he was
the character in the movie "Wall Street" who declared, "Greed is good"),
but yes, I know they can act as spurs to technological advancement. (I'm
going to concentrate my argument on science/invention/technology, as I'm
far from convinced that humanity has advanced in any other significant
way.)
But Competition != War. Further, a study of the last fifty years
contradicts Justin. West Germany and Japan did not rise back into world
prominence because they went to war. While you may argue that American
advances in technology, even the space program, were spurred on by fear
of the USSR, no battles were fought. And war did not give birth to the
Salk and Sabin vaccines, the dramatic rise in survival rates among cancer
patients, the very recent promising research in drugs to treat AIDS, or
many of the other advances in medical technology. And the huge acceleration
in computer processing power and software versatility was mostly driven
by economic competition. In fact, I would venture that every major advance
in recent (post-WW II) history was made by a country that was not at war.
The battlegrounds--Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, etc.--were pushed back, not
forward.
Now, it could be argued that this is a unique period in human history, and
I might agree. Perhaps, in past centuries, war was the primary force
behind advancement (though I'm not certain offhand what Gutenberg owes
to warfare). But I think we're now at a point, thanks in large part to
the way in which transportation, communication, and computer technologies
have changed the world, where war is in no way *necessary* to our further
progress.
I agree with you about the indifference of the universe. I have no need
to believe it's a "nice" place. But I'd sure like to know what sort of
progress or advancement could be attributed to the devastation of the
Narn homeworld.
Mark Bernstein
mxb@arbortext.com
From airyn@us.itd.umich.edu Thu Oct 17 21:32:12 1996
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Mark Bernstein wrote:
The argument I heard from Justin was that *war*--not competition, not
greed,
not anything other than destruction and bloodshed--*war* was necessary for
the advancement of species.
i think this is what was sitting so poorly with me. that's what i got from
it, but i didn't think that anyone else did, so i thought i was
hallucinating.. i recall after the first
viewing, the discussion went round from war to chaos to just general
unpleasantness. in essence, struggle. but i've been running with the way
we've been discussing it.
But Competition != War. Further, a study of the last fifty years
contradicts Justin. West Germany and Japan did not rise back into world
prominence because they went to war.
there you go, bringing facts into it! ;-) but you're absolutely right, and
it applies, i think. altho the shadows aren't saying that they'll do
anything after the war, like impose economic sanctions...perhaps they'll
just vanish for another 10,000 years and let the strongest of us prosper?
until *they decide* it's time for another culling. pretty ballsy if you
ask me.
[snip]
in recent (post-WW II) history was made by a country that was not at
war.
The battlegrounds--Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, etc.--were pushed back, not
forward.
these are all excellent points. and while i don't think that economic
competition is as noble an endeavor as, say, love for humanity or
something akin to that, it beats the hell out of war.
Now, it could be argued that this is a unique period in human
history, and
I might agree. Perhaps, in past centuries, war was the primary force
behind advancement (though I'm not certain offhand what Gutenberg owes
to warfare). But I think we're now at a point, thanks in large part to
the way in which transportation, communication, and computer technologies
have changed the world, where war is in no way *necessary* to our further
progress.
but what about the narns? what about the centauri? the narn certainly are
a young race, and might not be at the point where we are today, let alone
where we are in bab5. the centauri are theoretically older than we are,
right? but they ... well, quite frankly, they suck. so the shadows might
just be trying to trim the fat (narn/centauri) and in the process, make us
stronger just a tidge? haven't really thought this out, as usual. feel
free to spank me.
I agree with you about the indifference of the universe. I have no
need
to believe it's a "nice" place. But I'd sure like to know what sort of
progress or advancement could be attributed to the devastation of the
Narn homeworld.
the destruction of the narns, if what kosh said is true, that we should
"let them pass." i haven't seen the eps where this happens -- is g'kar
actually the last one?
From gregc@pm-tech.com Thu Oct 17 19:03:26 1996
Ok, Airyn, point number one that I should have made earlier:
My email responded to you directly, but the content was not directed
at *you* specifically. I was more talking about society in general, than
your viewpoints in particular. Sorry, should have made that clearer.
airyn darling
I feel that people are more capable of dealing with the cycles and trials of
nature than they are the cycles and trials of urban life. nutshell and
rather clumsy, but that's it, more or less.
Ahhhh! But see, that's not what you orriginally said. You said that you
thought we *all* should have gone back to the trees, or never left them.
I don't care if a portion of the population wants to go back to the trees.
When I care, is when the tree dwellers decide that the rest of society is
*wrong* and try to tear *everyone* back to the trees.
Personally, i'd want
something in the middle -- living in the middle of nowhere, gardening,
raising horses, walking in the woods, drinking from the stream, and then
coming home to my toyota land cruiser and t1. but htat's just me. i've
bought into a lot of the social processes. (gods but aren't we
off-topic!)
Sounds great. When do we start looking for property?
No, really. I like the above things too. *They arn't mutually incompatible*.
depends on the complexity. the complexity of figuring out when to
plant
the corn v. the complexity of 5 o'clock traffic. i'll take the corn in
this instance.
Again you inject your personal tastes into a reasonably objective argument.
5:00 o'clock traffic is "anoying", it's "frustrating", but I wouldn't call
it "complex". I could argue that figuring out when to plant the corn is a
fairly tricky and *complex* task, much moreso than 5:00 o'clock traffic.
very true, and i'm thankful for the relative ease of life in many
respects. but i can't help but wonder, "what if." you should understand
that, greg -- i can smell it on you! plus, that's what SF is all about --
it's a whole genre of "what if."
Heh. You're spouting one of my own soapboxs back at me.
I've bent a few ears over time with the concept of "What if", that it's
central to SF, and as an SF group(stilyagi), we shouldn't forget that.
Everyone once in a while, I hear someone say something about some alternate
path someone else is taking, and talking about how weird or wrong it is.
I have to ask them "Why are you here, if you can't handle different/alternate
viewpoints/ideas/ways-of-living?"
hrm! interesting thought, one i hadn't come up with at all. never
crossed my mind.
Ok, ok, let's not get testy. I brought it up *becuase* of the similaritys
with what you said, and the fact that it probably meant you'd thought out
some of these issues. :-)
the thing
i have problems with is, why cause
unnecessary
suffering in the mean time to fellow creatures? not that i'm so naive that
i think there is no suffering in nature -- note the "unnecessary." i know
it takes life to create life, and i can accept that on a primal sort of
level. i eat meat, and i'm ok with that. the thing that occasionally
bothers me about eating meat the way it's sold today is, there's no
respect or thanks given to the animal that gave up its life. respect is
another big issue for me; the predators respect their prey, i think. not
in an anthropomorphic sense, but they understand the cycles and the
processes. the only process involved with steak these days is generally
pithing the poor beast and letting the machines carve it up. i can see it
coming, and i'm just going to duck, rather than keep going on this. i'll
wait to see what you come back with. ;)
Nope, no comebacks here. I'm an omnivore. Life consumes life. It happens.
I don't have any problems with killing animals for food. But you are right
that our methods of dealing with the animals could use alot of improvment.
i don't think many people like to see suffering at all. but i think a
lot
of people are able to block it out, whereas i'm not nearly as good at
that. i see suffering, and i feel it from the sufferer's point of view to
a large extent. it's just the way i've always been -- i can feel other
people's emotions more often than not. no, not in a deanna troi sort of
way, you silly people! i believe it's in our nature to try to help other
people, so when we see suffering, generally, we want to alleviate it if we
can. if we can't help, we tend to tune out. that's probably healthier than
how i go about it, but i think it makes me more aware of the consequences
of things going on around me.
No argument there.
isn't that the truth! there was a big discussion about this on a
mailing
list that i run, and people went at it like you wouldn't believe. i guess
this applies to b5 -- vorlons v. shadows. life is full of greys for me. i
think it's that way for a lot of people in this group as well, but that's
just a guess. a lot of us haven't bought into the traditional roles, and i
think that requires a certain level of not-black-and-white thinking.
Yes, I agree, but not for our race as a whole.
of course -- we all filter things through our own paradigms, we have
to in
order to make sense of the world.
Yes, agreed. But I'm not talking about just how an individual of our species
interprets good&evil, I was saying that I think the entire concept of the
dichotomy known as "good&evil" are an invention of our species, An alien
species may not even have the concept.
hey, you've got to give me more credit than that -- do you honestly
think
i'm saying "bad, nasty evil wolves?" nope nope nope.
No, of course not, I was just making a gross, simple, example to illistrate
the concept. These "meta discussions" arn't direct towards you or anyone in
particular, I'm talking generalities.
another big discussion topic on my other list -- what is truth?
basically,
the general concensus was, "There is no whole truth, only individual
perceptions of it." i agree with that on a human level.
Agreed. That's my own view. Subjective truth exists. Objective truth *may*
exist, but there's no way for us to percieve it. My favorite example:
"Without giving an example, define to me what 'blue' is." :-)
heh. "42" comes to mind for no apparent reason...;) (speaking of such
things, greg, i must say -- you're a frood who really know where his towel
is.) (but i digress yet again.) (would you all rather we take this to
private emails?)
No, by the time they wake up and realize what has happened, we'll have
flooded all their mailboxes to the bursting point, they'll be core-dumping
left and right, they won't know what hit em. The Internet will be mine! All
mine! Mwahahahahaha! <*SLAP!*> Oh, sorry, it *is* getting late isn't it?
well of course it doesn't...i could really go off here about "judgment
day" and how certain groups will be just flabbergasted when it all comes
down, but that's really getting off-topic even further.
honestly? i don't know. in the only way i can wrap my mind around it,
which is rather abstractly, i would have to say that generally, i'd be
pretty comfy with it. i could stop worrying about what's "out there" and
just have a bloody good time here. but then there would be the absolute
mortal (MORTAL) terror of knowing that some day, i was just going to snuff
it, and that i would be no more. there's both comfort and abject terror
there.
Very much agreed. I *can* handle it becuase the above pretty much is my
philosophy. Finding meaning in pointlessness, sort of. And you and alot of
the group could too. But you and I and most of the group are so many
standard deviations away from what society considers "normal", that it
doesn't bear thinking about. :-) I still feel the bulk of the population
would have trouble with the scary answers.
Part of my father's side of the family are Jehovah's Witnesses. Some of the
things they taught, talked about, or said, would make your teeth hurt. Your
phrase about "dumber than a bag of hammers" comes blindingly to mind.
I agree that people often need religion to hang onto.....i *really*
trying to resist the temptation to go off on this!!!! i am!!
Heh. I'm guessing you and I would just be preaching to the choir on that one.
those egoists who think they're the final product just kill me.
Yep.
we're almost in danger of getting back on-topic here, greg...the
shadows!
Yes, yes. Patience, grasshopper. All things will come round in their time.
the thing that creeps me out is, we're truly terrible now. we're less
noble, just and kind than we ever were in many respects, bcuz we're
fooling ourselves into believing we're all of these things.
Oh, agreed. I never said we *were* those things, I just said we convinced
ourselves we were. Religion at work again. (Now don't get *me* started....)
at least when
og-the-bigger came up and thwacked nog-the-smaller, he was honest about
it, and didn't make any qualms about doing what he felt like doing. now we
have all of these polite social conventions to fall back upon to reassure
ourselves that we're really so civilized. bullshit.
Oh geez, that's scary.
One of the things that I get grief from other people on, is my bluntness,
and tactlessness. I tend very much to say what I feel and let the chips
fall. But I made a very conscious decision long ago, that "honesty" was
more important to me than "politness". I decided that "politeness" was
just another way to decieve someone in a *nice* way. (There's that word
"nice" again. Do you smell a theme here? Nah.)
when we're afraid or hurt, that's when the instincts come back.
Go watch what happens to people in the stands at football games. They're
not "afraid or hurt" at that point, but the regression is amazing.
but also through caring for our young, through loving other people,
creating communities. there is a balance to these things. everything
exists. yin and yang, ping and pong.
Hmmm, I do very much agree about the "balance" concept, and I'm not saying
that the above didn't exist, but did they cause us to progress?
i don't know about it being at our own peril. each day i choose not to
kill the luser on the other end of the phone who doesn't know what kind of
computer he's on,
(Snort!)
and instead help him figger out what's wrong, i feel
pretty good. the reward for me is the other person's happiness or
gratitude. i like making people happy much more than i like making people
hurt or miserable. not that i don't have those urges and acknowledge
them.
Ooooo, scary, that's actually very close to how I operate too.
i have a vivid fantasy life, full of large, blunt weapons and
manacles.
sure, people piss me off, and i react, based in part on those instincts.
but as far as i know, i *like* the way i handle people, generally
speaking. that might make me the monkey that always gets her banana taken
away, but i'd rather live with that than being the taker.
Hmmmm, I should have been clearer. I didn't mean ignoring the urge, I meant
ignoring the *source* of the urge. Where does it come from? Why do I have it?
Can I make it go away, or should I learn to co-exist with it? Etc.
Greg wrote earlier: End of argument.
that's completely naive in a general sense,
Yes, agreed. But you'd be amazed at the number of times people have backed
their arguments up to just that point.
yes, i recall thinking of "the third man" italy v. switzerland thing.
but
i still argue that both have their places. balance!
Yes, I agree about balance, I'm talking about those that didn't want to
admit that the one side even existed.
*sometimes* it is. we could not exist if there was only conflict and
greed
and aggression. we have to have that other stuff, too, otherwise we'd
never cooperate enough to get shit done.
Argh. My original argument was: "Do I think that agression/warfare/greed has
played a major role in the development of our species?" Answer: Yes.
Did I say it was the *only* factor? No. Did I even say it was the only
*major* factor? No. It exists. Deal with it. But I wasn't precluding the
existance of other factors.
Oh, my bleeding fingertips......
Gregc
From airyn@us.itd.umich.edu Thu Oct 17 19:07:59 1996
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
Ahhhh! But see, that's not what you orriginally said. You said that
you
thought we *all* should have gone back to the trees, or never left
them.
i really wouldn't be surprised if i switched sides a coupla times on this
issue -- i don't have a firm position. most of my opinions are subject to
change without notice as new information comes in, or i see something a
slightly different way. i think if we'd add never left the trees, then
things would generally be "better" in certain senses.
Again you inject your personal tastes into a reasonably objective
argument.
i'm always doing that, i guess. i didn't mean traffic specifically, but
more of a symbol for the trials and trib's of modern urban life.
Heh. You're spouting one of my own soapboxs back at me.
doh! no fair, huh? ;)
Ok, ok, let's not get testy. I brought it up *becuase* of the
similaritys
with what you said, and the fact that it probably meant you'd thought out
some of these issues. :-)
no no!! i really meant i hadn't ever thought of it! really!!! it honest to
god never crossed my mind. sorry if i sounded grumpy there. generally,
when i'm being facetious, i'll use a smiley, much as i hate them, they
are necessary. (shown here :)
Agreed. That's my own view. Subjective truth exists. Objective truth
*may*
exist, but there's no way for us to percieve it. My favorite example:
"Without giving an example, define to me what 'blue' is." :-)
heh! i love that. i've used it (or another color, obviously) in many
situations when trying to discuss something intangible. along the lines of
"how do you describe green to a person blind from birth?"
No, by the time they wake up and realize what has happened, we'll
have
flooded all their mailboxes to the bursting point, they'll be core-dumping
left and right, they won't know what hit em. The Internet will be mine! All
mine! Mwahahahahaha! <*SLAP!*> Oh, sorry, it *is* getting late isn't
it?
DOH!! you've let it slip! now they *KNOW*! now we have to kill them ALL!!
Go watch what happens to people in the stands at football games.
They're
not "afraid or hurt" at that point, but the regression is amazing.
hrm. that's a good point.
Yes, agreed. But you'd be amazed at the number of times people have
backed
their arguments up to just that point.
to use tracy's word -- "Sheeple."
Yes, I agree about balance, I'm talking about those that didn't want
to
admit that the one side even existed.
sheeple.
Oh, my bleeding fingertips......
and everyone elses' bleeding eyes!
From gregc@pm-tech.com Thu Oct 17 19:21:56 1996
In the interest's of everyone's bleeding eyes, I've decided to trim out
some of the parts that have been discussed to death. I don't think it was
more than a couple thousand lines....
i'm always doing that, i guess. i didn't mean traffic specifically,
but
more of a symbol for the trials and trib's of modern urban life.
Ah, I see, you're being *symbolic* on me. Never mind.
heh! i love that. i've used it (or another color, obviously) in many
situations when trying to discuss something intangible. along the lines of
"how do you describe green to a person blind from birth?"
It gets even weirder. Take 2 normally sighted people. They've both been
shown *examples* of the color blue since childhood and told "this is what
blue looks like", but is there anyway you can be sure that the mental
construct that each person creates to represent "blue" in their minds
is the same as the other person's? I say you can't. That without some
form of telepathy, it's impossible. Maybe not even then. This may be one
of the reasons why 2 people can look at the same piece of artwork and
percieve 2 completely different things.
i used to worry much more about decorum than i did about what i felt i
had
to say. now, however, it's much the other way round. i still try to be
"nice," generally speaking, but i'll speak my mind 90% of the time. that
often isn't appreciated, esp. when the person i'm talking to is the
"chips."
I think the problem is that, as a race and culture, we are too often
concerned with the short term solution and not the long term view. [food
for another meta discussion here.] In worrying about not hurting someone's
feelings *now*, people overlook the long term hurt the person may acquire
by not having the information.
So where do you draw the line? It's a slippery edge to deal with and I'm
not good at it.
to use tracy's word -- "Sheeple."
Sheeple????
Gregc
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:21:50 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
So where do you draw the line? It's a slippery edge to deal with and
I'm
not good at it.
it's a very slippery edge, indeed. i try to err on the side of diplomacy
right now...who am i to judge what's right for someone else? i guess
that's another thing that galls me about the shadow/vorlon thing -- who
are they to decide what's best for us?! that's really the center of that
specific issue, all evolution arguments aside. so they're ancient - so
what! leave us be.
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:56:09 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
6-year old: "My parents think they know more than me just becauze
they're
older than me. Ha!", he says, dropping a match into a
bucket
of gasoline becuase he "wants to see what will happen." :-)
well, if an entire race is that stupid, then yes -- let them blow
themselves to bits! ok, well, that's not what i really mean. ;-)
basically, advising is ok with me. direct meddling isn't.
Maybe that's what is supposed to be happening here. JMS is
postulating 2
races whose cultures are older than our entire race, and which most
likely
contain *individuals* who are older than our entire recorded
history.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that maybe they figured a few things out
along they way? And that we, in our youthful arrogance, would be too
proud
to accept or admit to this fact?
well certainly. but if we can't figger it out for ourselves, then that's
our problem, eh? i do see your point, i just don't know that i agree with
it completely. :-)
From critter@intranet.org Thu Oct 17 19:22:12 1996
DOH!! you've let it slip! now they *KNOW*! now we have to kill them
ALL!!
Or are you merely setting up circumstances to cull the weak and sickly who
don't check their email at least three times a day?
i think we have to have both in order to progress. that's just
totally off
the cuff, and something i'll have to think about. hrm. get back to me on
that.
Um, it is generally required that a race survive in order to progress, and
without nurturing, babies don't survive. Not just food and diapering,
either....babies raised in institutions without stimulation and touch
beyond basic needs do indeed waste away and die (condition is called
marasmus).
Tracy
From gregc@pm-tech.com Thu Oct 17 19:22:52 1996
Or are you merely setting up circumstances to cull the weak and sickly
who
don't check their email at least three times a day?
Only 3 times a day? HA! Amateurs!
Um, it is generally required that a race survive in order to progress,
and
without nurturing, babies don't survive. Not just food and diapering,
either....babies raised in institutions without stimulation and touch
beyond basic needs do indeed waste away and die (condition is called
marasmus).
Weeelllll, ok. I guess survival of the race could depend on making sure
the babies survive. I might be willing to grant you that one. :-)
Gregc
From gregc@pm-tech.com Thu Oct 17 21:03:21 1996
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
Maybe that's what is supposed to be happening here. JMS is postulating 2 races whose cultures are older than our entire race, and which most likely
contain *individuals* who are older than our entire recorded history.
Isn't it reasonable to assume that maybe they figured a few things out
along they way? And that we, in our youthful arrogance, would be too proud
to accept or admit to this fact?
So all parents should just leave their children alone to figure everything
out for themselves and not try to teach them things? And even, to not
restrain them when they see them doing something stupid? ("Oh look! Jimmy's
about to stick his screwdriver into the electrical outlet." (ZNORT!
FZZZZ!)
"(Sigh)Well, I guess it's time to get a new Jimmy....")
Maybe that's the whole point here. Maybe the shadows/vorlons see themselves
as the parents/teachers of the younger races. Hell, maybe they *are* our
parents. :-)
i do see your point, i just don't know that i agree with it
completely. :)
Who says I agree with it either? I'm asking "what if" again.
Gregc
From airyn@us.itd.umich.edu Thu Oct 17 21:17:05 1996
So all parents should just leave their children alone to figure
everything
out for themselves and not try to teach them things? And even, to not
restrain them when they see them doing something stupid? ("Oh look! Jimmy's
about to stick his screwdriver into the electrical outlet." (ZNORT!
FZZZZ!)
"(Sigh) Well, I guess it's time to get a new Jimmy....")
oh, i think you know me better than that by now. but we've figgered things
out ourselves thus far...why do we need the vorlons to show us how to keep
figgering things out? what if there *were* no vorlons or shadows? well,
we'll either stick the screwdriver in the socket, or we'll learn.
Maybe that's the whole point here. Maybe the shadows/vorlons see
themselves
as the parents/teachers of the younger races. Hell, maybe they *are* our
parents. :-)
perhaps, perhaps. i'm not saying they haven't guided us all along, i just
dont' know. maybe we're in the rebellious teenager stage right now.
Who says I agree with it either? I'm asking "what if" again.
doh! (smacking forehead)
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 22:21:48 -0400 (EDT)
Greg, I'm trying right now to not find this slightly insulting, since
I was
one of the most vociferous anti-Shadow participants in that discussion, and
this doesn't even remotely represent what I was saying. I'll try to restate
and clarify.
I had no intent to insult. And the above was not aimed at you(specifially).
I have been in many debates/discussions/arguments on CIS, Mnet, Grex, Usenet,
Face-to-face, with friends and strangers, etc, over the years. I have seen
the above argument come up more times than I'd like to remember. I hate
hearing it, or it's many variations. I'm sensitive to it and tend to
over-react when I see it starting to form again. And I'm sorry, but I *was*
starting to hear it during the after-Z'ha'dum conversation.
First off, let me lay some groundwork here. These could be food for more
meta-discussions, but I'll try to keep them short.
We have a tendancy to attempt to apply *false* dichotomys to things that
really arn't polar. Arguments of "A" versus "B" start falling into assumptions
that if you're against "A", then you must be for "B". Or even, if you arn't
for "A", then you must be for "B".
This argument seems to have fallen into that in some ways.
Let me state for the record what I believe here:
Do I believe that war is the *only* mechanism that has caused our race to
advance/prosper/change/grow? NO, of course not, don't be silly. That is not
what I'm arguing. I'm not even arguing that it's *the* major cause. I *am*
arguing that it's *one* of *many* major causes.
But it seemed to me that I was hearing a number of people make the argument
that war's role in our development has been insignificant and unimportant.
That it's importance could be ignored. That is where I disagree.
Again, do I like this fact? No. Please don't lump me in with the military
crowd who think it's just a great and glorious thing that we seem to like
to kill each other.
On the other hand, I also don't agree with the flower-children of the 60's
who believed that if we were left to our own devices we'd lead this
wonderfully blissful pastoral life of non-aggression and harmony. That
would be nice, and it *is* something to strive for, but I believe the
aggression is built into us and to achieve the above harmony, we have to
*face* the caveman in the hindbrain and come to some kind of working
relationship with it, rather than pretend it just isn't there.
The argument I heard from Justin was that *war*--not competition, not
greed,
not anything other than destruction and bloodshed--*war* was necessary for
the advancement of species. *That's* what I disagree with. Did I read too
much into what he said? Given that most of the Shadows' acts have been
clearly destructive in nature--attacking, supporting the attacks of others
--I don't think so. The only exception I can think of is the infiltration
of Psi Corps, and that was a defensive measure.
Ok, I'm not agreeing with that either. The conversation went from the above
idea of warfare only into a more diffuse conversation. I was mainly
disagreeing with the idea that: "war has had no part in our current situation".
I'm all for competition. Hell, I personally have a competitive streak
a
mile wide. Aggression? Greed? I don't buy Gordon Gecko's line (he was
the character in the movie "Wall Street" who declared, "Greed is good"),
but yes, I know they can act as spurs to technological advancement. (I'm
going to concentrate my argument on science/invention/technology, as I'm
far from convinced that humanity has advanced in any other significant
way.)
Heh. Yeah, I know who Gordon Gecko is. That's a name I couldn't easily
forget.
Actually, I don't think "greed" per se, is good either. It isn't.
I used it becuase it's the root or parent of a quality I think is very
useful to us. Think of it as greed's good cousin. Call it "incentive".
For whatever reason, almost all humans need an eventual reward for their
actions. Except for a few rare individuals, most of us need an incentive,
the carrot and the stick, before we will do something. [I could go off on
a meta-discussion about "altruism" here, but I won't.]
Generally, we worry about our own needs first. Once those are met, we
begin to worry about the needs of the tribe, the nation, the planet.
Genetically, we are pre-diposed towards individualism, rather than a
group or hive mentality. The exception to this is the needs of the immediate
mate and children.
If you assume that humans are somehow better than this, and build a
philosophy around it, it is doomed. The example I like to use is communism.
Marx assumed a more perfect human than he actually had to work with. He
assumed that, left to their own devices, humans would do the Right-Thing
for the greater good of the group. He was assuming Homo-superioris, when what
he really had to work with was just good old homo-sapians. He ignored human
nature.
In western culture, we provide an incentive for excellence. Do more or better
work and you will be rewarded. If someone does 25% more work than his
co-workers, he is rewarded. The co-workers arn't punished. In the communist
countries, the assumption was that each worker was equal. If someone did
25% more work than his co-workers, he wasn't rewarded. The assumption was
that since everyone was equal, his co-workers were merely lazy and were
slacking off, why didn't they get their collective ass's in gear and do what
this other fellow did? What ussually happened then was that this fellow's
peer's explained to him, in no uncertain terms, that he "wasn't going to do
any more of this over-achiever stuff anymore, right?"
This tended to foster an atmosphere of "just do what's expected of you and
no more", "do not rock the boat", "do not stand out in the crowd". In short,
"mediocrity". Without the incentive of reward, there was no reason to try.
Look at the difference between East and West Berlin for a good example of this.
But Competition != War. Further, a study of the last fifty years
contradicts Justin. West Germany and Japan did not rise back into world
prominence because they went to war. While you may argue that American
advances in technology, even the space program, were spurred on by fear
of the USSR, no battles were fought. And war did not give birth to the
Salk and Sabin vaccines, the dramatic rise in survival rates among cancer
patients, the very recent promising research in drugs to treat AIDS, or
many of the other advances in medical technology. And the huge acceleration
in computer processing power and software versatility was mostly driven
by economic competition. In fact, I would venture that every major advance
in recent (post-WW II) history was made by a country that was not at war.
The battlegrounds--Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, etc.--were pushed back, not
forward.
Sorry, I disagree. You're making the assumption that the advances and wars
will be in perfect lock-step with each other. I think of them as 2 wave
fronts, one following the other. I believe you made the comment, correct
me if I got this wrong, that: "We havn't been at war in 20 years, but we've
made major advances in the last 20 years."
I'm sorry, but I think that's naive. We just came out of the 80 bloodiest
years on the planet's history. We passed through WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam,
and a host of other little wars and skirmishes all over the planet. In
addition to the US, other countries have been fighting each other. The above
4 mentioned conflicts caused major advances in Technology, electronics,
medicine, materials-science, computers, etc. It took some time for those
to come down to civilian uses, but they did. Also, a great deal of computer,
electronics, propulsion, and avionics advances has been the result of this
country *preparing* to fight a war. Ever hear of the "Cold-War".
Now, it could be argued that this is a unique period in human history,
and
I might agree.
Heh! Now *there's* an under-statement!
Perhaps, in past centuries, war was the primary force
behind advancement (though I'm not certain offhand what Gutenberg owes
to warfare).
You see, that's what I was saying at the start of this. I'm not denying
Gutenberg. I'm not denying all the peaceful things that has advanced our
culture. they *all* play a part. I'm just not denying warfare either.
But I think we're now at a point, thanks in large part to
the way in which transportation, communication, and computer technologies
have changed the world, where war is in no way *necessary* to our further
progress.
Read my lips: "I never said it was *necasary*." I just said that it *is*.
I agree with you about the indifference of the universe. I have no
need
to believe it's a "nice" place. But I'd sure like to know what sort of
progress or advancement could be attributed to the devastation of the
Narn homeworld.
Did I ever say I agreed with the destruction of the Narn Homeworld?
I didn't. But allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment:
Have you ever planted a rose garden and then gone out and "weeded" that
garden? It might be beneficial to the garden as a whole, but I'll bet
it pisses off the weeds! Perhaps the Vorlons know that the Narns are
effectively "weeds".
Gregc
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 09:50:49 -0400 (EDT)
On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Greg Cronau wrote:
So have I.
the above argument come up more times than I'd like to remember.
Yes, I've seen it.
I hate
hearing it, or it's many variations. I'm sensitive to it and tend to
over-react when I see it starting to form again.
I won't argue with that. :)
And I'm sorry, but I *was*
starting to hear it during the after-Z'ha'dum conversation.
Then we just heard different things. What stood out to me, more than
anything else, were the arguments that tried to make a case for the
Shadows by changing "war" into "competition". That, as much as
anything, is what I was reacting to.
Do I believe that war is the *only* mechanism that has caused our
race to
advance/prosper/change/grow? NO, of course not, don't be silly. That is not
what I'm arguing. I'm not even arguing that it's *the* major cause. I *am*
arguing that it's *one* of *many* major causes.
OK, that's much clearer than it was before. Earlier, you were lumping war
in with other concepts ("greed", "agression").
But it seemed to me that I was hearing a number of people make the
argument
that war's role in our development has been insignificant and unimportant.
That it's importance could be ignored. That is where I disagree.
Really? I never heard anyone make that argument.
On the other hand, I also don't agree with the flower-children of the
60's
who believed that if we were left to our own devices we'd lead this
wonderfully blissful pastoral life of non-aggression and harmony.
And here I think you fall into exactly the dichotomy trap you decried,
by implying that anyone who criticizes war takes the extreme, "flower-
child", position. Could you name the people in this group who said
anything like the position in this paragraph? If not, why bring it up?
Ok, I'm not agreeing with that either. The conversation went from the
above
idea of warfare only into a more diffuse conversation. I was mainly
disagreeing with the idea that: "war has had no part in our current
situation".
I'm glad we agree so much. :) Again, that's an argument I never heard.
For whatever reason, almost all humans need an eventual reward for
their
actions. Except for a few rare individuals, most of us need an incentive,
the carrot and the stick, before we will do something. [I could go off on
a meta-discussion about "altruism" here, but I won't.]
On this, we agree completely,
Generally, we worry about our own needs first. Once those are met, we
begin to worry about the needs of the tribe, the nation, the planet.
Genetically, we are pre-diposed towards individualism, rather than a
group or hive mentality. The exception to this is the needs of the immediate
mate and children.
I was going to respond to this, then realized that I don't know what it
has to do with anything else we're discussing. Honestly, I don't see
the connection.
If you assume that humans are somehow better than this, and build a
philosophy around it, it is doomed. The example I like to use is
communism.
Yes, communism could be seen as cooperation taken to an extreme.
Individualism taken to an extreme is anarchy, which doesn't have a real
good track record either.
Sorry, I disagree. You're making the assumption that the advances and
wars
will be in perfect lock-step with each other.
No, I'm not, but I wasn't clear on that.
I think of them as 2 wave
fronts, one following the other. I believe you made the comment, correct
me if I got this wrong, that: "We havn't been at war in 20 years, but we've
made major advances in the last 20 years."
No, I said fifty years. For this discussion, that's a significant
difference.
I'm sorry, but I think that's naive.
That's okay, I think you're overly cynical. :)
We just came out of the 80 bloodiest
years on the planet's history. We passed through WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam,
and a host of other little wars and skirmishes all over the planet.
(We're out of it? Nobody told me.)
(And I called *you* cynical. Sheesh.)
In
addition to the US, other countries have been fighting each other. The above
4 mentioned conflicts caused major advances in Technology, electronics,
medicine, materials-science, computers, etc.
Now, you see, this is where I think it's easy to misconstrue your argument.
You stated above that you don't think war is the only spur for advancement,
but then that's all you talk about. I never said, and never believed, that
war doesn't generate advancement. I was, very specifically, disagreeing
with Justin's contention that war is necessary for the advancement of
already advanced races.
Ever hear of the "Cold-War".
You know I have, since I also referred to that above.
Heh! Now *there's* an under-statement!
I meant unique in terms of how necessary war is to our further advancement,
but I assume you knew that, and were just being flippant?
You see, that's what I was saying at the start of this. I'm not
denying
Gutenberg. I'm not denying all the peaceful things that has advanced our
culture. they *all* play a part. I'm just not denying warfare
either.
And neither am I, on a historical basis. I'm just arguing with Justin.
Read my lips: "I never said it was *necasary*." I just said that it
*is*.
No, *Justin* said it was necessary.
Have you ever planted a rose garden and then gone out and "weeded"
that
garden? It might be beneficial to the garden as a whole, but I'll bet
it pisses off the weeds! Perhaps the Vorlons know that the Narns are
effectively "weeds".
Purely hypothetical, with no evidence to back it up. And how would the
Shadows (I assume you meant Shadows, not Vorlons) know what the future
implications of not destroying Narn would have been?
Mark Bernstein
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 12:17:18 -0500
I *think* I got the attributions correct...
Krysta:
... So I started thinking about the effects of war. There are
deaths
of
barely post-adolescent boys, grand scale use/waste of resources, more
burials, more burnings, ... are any of these side effects useful to
our
culture? Maybe, maybe not. But now I'm wondering, are any of these
side
effects useful to our planet?
Airyn:
this is something i've wondered about myself...the larger cycles over
time, and our roles in them. it's an interesting idea, but one that i
can't quite wrap my mind around, bcuz it's so long-term, so huge, and
utterly beyond my lifespan. but we're making things warmer, so what
effects will that have? we're killing off lots of species, what's that
going to do? the whole "what we do to the web, we do to ourselves" bit.
Tracy:
OK, I may as well add fuel to the fire. The following opinions should
not
be assumed to reflect my person views; I don't know what I think.
Accepting for the moment the gaia hypothesis for our planet (about which
I don't know enough to have a strong opinion), say humans were evolved by
the planet for some of our effects. As possible exhibits, I could posit
our deliberate creation of hardy hybrid plants, and, as a side effect of
our tendency to travel much more widely than any other nonmigratory
species, the accidental transportation of seeds and pollen to habitats
far
from where they are produced, encouraging both intraspecies genetic
diversity and, more rarely by this method, introduction of a species to a
new environment.
However, ecology involves checks and balances. Smallpox could be seen as
a check on humanity. Antibiotic resistant TB could be seen as another.
But do species have internal checks? I vaguely remember that some
species
reproduction rates change pretty drasticly depending on species density,
predator density, and resource density. If you posit that these are
internal checks which the gaia force has evolved into these species,
could
say, the tendency of humans to show high levels of aggression under
normal circumstances, and higher levels when the population density
increases be such a check?
The Gaia metaphor: has always bugged me. Not because it's flat-out
WRONG, but because it's misleading. Yes, the biosphere is a complex
system (indeed, arguably *the* most complex interactive adaptive
system of which we know). But there's this tendency for humans to
*anthropomorphize* any complex system (the biosphere, a government, a
large corporation), on the assumption that anything that complex must
have a single psychological "mind"-- that it has intentions, desires,
etc. which direct its actions. 'Tain't so, and it can be misleading
to think it that way, because it causes one to miss more complicated
explanations. Ecology doesn't involve "checks and balances," it
involves various niches getting filled (and lost) and adaptation
taking place. Adaptation/evolution is not a top-down DIRECTED
process, it emerges from below. There's no "grand plan" to evolution.
Biodiversity: *is* a big concern, because it's a measure of the
"building blocks" that the biosphere has available for adaptation.
(Side note: I wish that environmentalists would focus more on
biodiversity and less on sidenotes like global warming and the
villainy of large corporations (as if governments and NGOs don't do
harm, merely because their intentions are "purer."))
Global warming? Hard to say the extent of the problem, if any. Last
I looked (a couple years ago), the main evidence was based on
hard-to-interpret satellite temperature data and incomplete computer
models. Consider that one volcano in '92 had ten times the effect on
global temperature as measurable global warming in the '80s did.
While carbon dioxide *has* doubtless increased in the atmosphere, its
effect on overall temperature is tiny compared to cloud cover-- which
is more difficult to model. So the scientific jury is still out-- not
that that's stopped the mass media from assuming GW is "proven," the
same way that "everyone knows" aerosol cans destroy the ozone layer
(even though they haven't contained CFCs since the '70s).
Effect of war on the biosphere:
Short-term: Devastating (everybody remember how Saddam Hussein was
intentionally causing oil slicks in the Gulf in '91?).
Long-term: Very very unpredictable. To some extent war actually
*halts* other man-made effects on the environment by destroying
industrial bases. But overall there's probably less environment-
protecting going on than during peacetime (no one can afford to *care*
about the environment, except during relatively peaceful and
prosperous times).
Also note that war really doesn't have MUCH of an effect, period. For
example, if you look at World Population Growth during 1939-1945, you
won't even notice a blip from the killing of WWII.
In any case, there simply exists no mechanism by which the planet
"cares" about war and can "direct" its effects. Any "function" served
is a post-hoc rationalization placed on events by human beings.
(Up above, I said the biosphere is "arguably *the* most complex
interactive adaptive system of which we know." It depends on whether
one includes human minds and societies as part of the biosphere.)
-Paul
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 15:21:04 -0400
Paul:
(Up above, I said the biosphere is "arguably *the* most complex
interactive adaptive system of which we know." It depends on whether
one includes human minds and societies as part of the biosphere.)
What I'm thinking about here, Paul, premise only, is thinking of the
planet
as a system, like the body of an animal or plant; thinking of the planet
as
something that has it's own evolution. Except that the planet doesn't die
when it gets something wrong, it instead gets colder or hotter or it loses
some "cells" or somthing. I'm thinking in terms of the scifi book I
wrote,
which gave me this idea of thinking of the planet as something that has
evolved different species of plants and animals as a way of keeping itself
whole, just as birds developed wings and humans developed intellect. I
would even postulate (since this is already a far-out theory) that
developing humans was some sort of evolutionary necessity. Running away
with this idea, then, I want to imagine some arguments for this idea.
Ideas against are taken de facto, because basically it's too weird to
assume that the planet evolved humans in order to regulate the ozone
layer.
*grin*
So keep those ideas revolving!
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 1996 15:46:53 -0500 (EST)
Clarifications first:
The Gaia metaphor: has always bugged me. Not because it's flat-out
WRONG, but because it's misleading. Yes, the biosphere is a complex
system (indeed, arguably *the* most complex interactive adaptive
system of which we know). But there's this tendency for humans to
*anthropomorphize* any complex system (the biosphere, a government, a
large corporation), on the assumption that anything that complex must
have a single psychological "mind"-- that it has intentions, desires,
etc. which direct its actions. 'Tain't so, and it can be misleading
to think it that way, because it causes one to miss more complicated
explanations.
Ah, well, you see we're working at cross-purposes. I was accepting that
assumption to allow myself to play with the concepts that followed.
R/T anthropomorphising, though, I'm not sure I agree with your flat
statement that it is all bad, but that is a tangent which should probably
do discussed either as a separate thread, by private emai, or FTF.
Ecology doesn't involve "checks and balances," it
involves various niches getting filled (and lost) and adaptation
taking place. Adaptation/evolution is not a top-down DIRECTED
process, it emerges from below. There's no "grand plan" to
evolution.
I think you are disagreeing not so much with what I said, but as to what
you believe its inherent implications are, correct? And you believe the
use of "checks and balances" implies a directing intelligence of some
sort?
Effect of war on the biosphere:
Short-term: Devastating (everybody remember how Saddam Hussein was
intentionally causing oil slicks in the Gulf in '91?).
Long-term: Very very unpredictable. To some extent war actually
*halts* other man-made effects on the environment by destroying
industrial bases. But overall there's probably less environment-
protecting going on than during peacetime (no one can afford to *care*
about the environment, except during relatively peaceful and
prosperous times).
Also note that war really doesn't have MUCH of an effect, period. For
example, if you look at World Population Growth during 1939-1945, you
won't even notice a blip from the killing of WWII.
In any case, there simply exists no mechanism by which the planet
"cares" about war and can "direct" its effects. Any "function" served
is a post-hoc rationalization placed on events by human beings.
You're sounding pretty dogmatic there. However, I will also hold off on
the discussion of why I tend toward a slightly agnostic theism until
another time or thread.
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:29:26 -0500
Ah, well, you see we're working at cross-purposes. I was accepting
that
assumption to allow myself to play with the concepts that followed.
OK. Bit of "been there, done that," I guess. For selfish reasons
(*I* wanna have something new thrown at me), I want you to play with
*my* conceptual terms. :-)
R/T anthropomorphising, though, I'm not sure I agree with your flat
statement that it is all bad, but that is a tangent which should probably
do discussed either as a separate thread, by private emai, or FTF.
(Ah, heck, one more for the list. But after this I'll stop.)
Oh, it's not all bad. "Gaia" is a better mental model for the
environment in many respects than looking at it as a "pile of
resources," for example. And even if Gaia is an incorrect model in
some respects, it's still good to extent that people can understand it
and draw accurate conclusions from it. It's just limiting, compared
to some alternative models for understanding (but ones which might be
more difficult for most folks to grok.)
Similarly, anthropomorphizing "Congress" or "General Motors" or "God"
isn't *BAD*, it's just limiting, compared to some other possible
conceptions.
As an aside, one model for the environment which differs from any of
the above is one I ran into down in Guatemala. The Itzaj Mayans don't
think of the forest as a "living being," they think of it as a
"house"-- a house one inherits from one's ancestors and must care for
to pass down to one's descendants.
Ecology doesn't involve "checks and balances," it
involves various niches getting filled (and lost) and adaptation
taking place. Adaptation/evolution is not a top-down DIRECTED
process, it emerges from below. There's no "grand plan" to evolution.
I think you are disagreeing not so much with what I said, but as to what
you believe its inherent implications are, correct? And you believe the
use of "checks and balances" implies a directing intelligence of some
sort?
"Checks and balances," at least to me, implies a sort of conscious
design, yes-- I've heard the phrase used most often with respect to
the U.S. Constitution. "Negative feedback loops" is a similar idea
but one which does not imply a conscious design. For example, as the
rabbits rise in numbers, the foxes rise because they have more food,
so that the rabbits decline, so that the foxes decline. Important
point, though-- there are many examples of *positive* feedback in the
environment, as well-- of new "types" like flowering plants evolving
and overrunning other forms.
Effect of war on the biosphere:
You're sounding pretty dogmatic there. However, I will also hold off on
the discussion of why I tend toward a slightly agnostic theism until
another time or thread.
Insert "IMHO" above, then. Yeah, it probably does sound dogmatic.
But at least it's more concise that way. :-)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 00:57:38 -0500 (EST)
Paul Estin
Clarifications first:
The Gaia metaphor: has always bugged me. Not because it's flat-out
WRONG, but because it's misleading. Yes, the biosphere is a complex
system (indeed, arguably *the* most complex interactive adaptive
system of which we know). But there's this tendency for humans to
*anthropomorphize* any complex system (the biosphere, a government, a
large corporation), on the assumption that anything that complex must
have a single psychological "mind"-- that it has intentions, desires,
etc. which direct its actions. 'Tain't so, and it can be misleading
to think it that way, because it causes one to miss more complicated
explanations. Ecology doesn't involve "checks and balances," it
involves various niches getting filled (and lost) and adaptation
taking place. Adaptation/evolution is not a top-down DIRECTED
process, it emerges from below. There's no "grand plan" to
evolution.
I will first state that I agree completely with everything Paul says
above.
I will then play devil's advocate and mention that this is an excellent
example of Tracy's assertion that Paul and I tend to argue from positions
that come across as dogma, instead of opinion. :-)
Gregc
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 1996 01:04:13 -0500
Paul:
Greg:
I will first state that I agree completely with everything Paul says
above.
I will then play devil's advocate and mention that this is an excellent
example of Tracy's assertion that Paul and I tend to argue from positions
that come across as dogma, instead of opinion. :-)
Paul:
-Paul
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 18:54:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: airyn darling
To: Bab 5 List
Subject: Re: 1/3
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~airyn
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:16:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: airyn darling
Subject: Re: 1/3
airyn
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:42:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: airyn darling
Subject: Re: 1/3
From: airyn darling
To: Heather Coon
Subject: Re: 1/3
From: Greg Cronau
Subject: Re: 1/3
From: Heather Coon
Subject: Re: 1/3
tamper (v.i) meddle; touch improperly or harmfully.
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 02:01:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Cronau
Subject: Re: 1/3
"I wonder if this bug on my ass is poisonous"
"I wonder if I'll live to be 35"
"I wonder if that deer is going to try to kill me"
"I wonder why 3 of my 4 children had to die before age 10"
"I wonder whether the water in that pond will poison me"
Meta Discussion #1: On the nature of one aspect of the Universe.
Meta Discussion #2: On the nature of "Truth".
Meta Discussion #3: On the nature of our genetic past.
Today I will not steal,
Today I will not rape,
Today I will not kill,
Today I will not make war.
==========================================
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 04:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: airyn darling
Subject: Re: 1/3
"I wonder if this bug on my ass is poisonous"
"I wonder if I'll live to be 35"
"I wonder if that deer is going to try to kill me"
"I wonder why 3 of my 4 children had to die before age 10"
"I wonder whether the water in that pond will poison me"
Meta Discussion #1: On the nature of one aspect of the Universe.
Meta Discussion #2: On the nature of "Truth".
Meta Discussion #3: On the nature of our genetic past.
Today I will not steal,
Today I will not rape,
Today I will not kill,
Today I will not make war.
==========================================
whoooop! whoop!
airyn the restless
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 11:20:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark
Subject: Re: 1/3
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:17:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: airyn darling
Subject: Re: 1/3
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 06:08:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Cronau
Subject: Re: 1/3
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:13:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: airyn darling
Subject: Re: 1/3
we're going to be ostracized, you realize....
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:03:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Cronau
Subject: Re: 1/3
From: airyn darling
Subject: Re: 1/3
From: airyn darling
Subject: Re: 1/3
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:05:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tracy Worcester
Subject: Re: 1/3
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 19:09:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Cronau
Subject: Re: 1/3
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Cronau
Subject: Re: 1/3
well certainly. but if we can't figger it out for ourselves, then
that's
our problem, eh?
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 20:11:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: airyn darling
Subject: Re: 1/3
From: Greg Cronau
Subject: Re: 1/3
From: Mark Bernstein
Subject: Re: 1/3
I have been in many debates/discussions/arguments on CIS, Mnet, Grex,
Usenet,
Face-to-face, with friends and strangers, etc, over the years. I have
seen
mxb@arbortext.com
From: Paul Estin
Subject: GW, Gaia, etc. (was Re: run and hide! B5 is everywhere... )
From: Talyen (talyen@intranet.org)
To: b5-l@limno.com
Subject: Re: GW, Gaia, etc. (was Re: run and hide! B5 is everywhere... )
From: Tracy Worcester (critter@intranet.org)
Subject: Re: GW, Gaia, etc. (was Re: run and hide! B5 is everywhere... )
From: Paul Estin (estin@psych.lsa.umich.edu)
Subject: Re: GW, Gaia, etc. (was Re: run and hide! B5 is everywhere... )
..
In any case, there simply exists no mechanism by which the planet
"cares" about war and can "direct" its effects. Any "function" served
is a post-hoc rationalization placed on events by human beings.
-Paul
From: Greg Cronau (gregc@pm-tech.com)
Subject: Re: GW, Gaia, etc. (was Re: run and hide! B5 is everywhere... )
From: Paul Estin (estin@psych.lsa.umich.edu)
Subject: Re: GW, Gaia, etc. (was Re: run and hide! B5 is everywhere... )
The Gaia metaphor: has always bugged me. Not because it's flat-out
WRONG, but because it's misleading. Yes, the biosphere is a complex
...
taking place. Adaptation/evolution is not a top-down DIRECTED
process, it emerges from below. There's no "grand plan" to
evolution.
No. You're wrong. :-) :-) :-)
