Well... Don't I feel like a silly-willy.
>Perhaps the world doesn't need to be saved. But if we are the most powerful
>and only sentient species on the planet, we should exercise some kind of
>ecological responsibility.
Ok.
>Surely you are aware of certain data which indicates possibly catastrophic
>dangers to the biosphere and to humanity.
I assume you're talking about Nuclear Weapons, Depletion of the O-Zone
Layer, Mass Extention of Species, and Ross Perot.
>Even if the world is in tip-top
>shape, it's difficult to ignore the fact that the vast majority of our
>fellow human beings are living in poverty. Forget cars, Armanis and
>consumer electronics. A significant portion of our species has a difficult
>enough time finding something to eat on a regular basis.
Screw those people! They deserve to die! (Just a little Social Dawinian
humor. (I'm not a Social Dawinist, by the way.)) ;->
By the way, I _never_ said I thought the world was in tip-top-shape. Read
on...
>We have evolved
>genetically from a history in which our largest social group was a village
>or perhaps a tribe. Even with our phenomenal minds which allow us to adapt
>so readily to almost any environment, we are becoming a collectively
>schizophrenic species.
I disagree with only two words: "becoming" and "schizophrenic ". I would
say "are, and always have been" and "dangerous assholes".
> We are simply not built to live in communities of
>BILLIONS. (Please forgive any implication of evolutionary purpose or design
>in that statement!) If we do not alter our meme-complexes radically
>enough....
The only billions I've seen in a single community are the cockroaches
living in New York City. :-)
I do agree with you on this point though. Here's the scope on the real
situation: Currently, the world's population is growing at a hyperbolic
rate (for those of you reading this who don't know what hyperbolic means,
its basically exponentialally exponential. There's where all the starving
people are coming from. If the growth in world population continues at
current levels, we will have an infinite number of human beings by the year
2040. (Source: "Laws of the Game" by Manfred Eigen & Ruthild Winkler.
Princeton Science Library. Page 213.) This means that if you put every
human being face to face and shoulder to shoulder, the universe would be to
small to hold them all. Obviously, the human animal is going to suffer some
hard-core shit in the next fifty years.
Perhaps our memes _can_ save us. Perhaps a population-control meme _can_
overcome our gene's instructions to reproduce. I doubt it though, and my
money's on alot of people dying horrible deaths within my lifetime.
>One more point. I care about my memes. I don't give a damn what my genes
>say, except as they are indirectly represented in my memes.
Perhaps you consciously don't give a damn. But I find it hard to believe
you have complete control over things like hunger and sex drive. If you do,
you're a rare individual. For most people, gene's are sneaky little SOBs
that effect our thinking without us even being aware of it at times.
>One meme of
>mine is that you fight for what you believe is right to the end. If that
>means going up against my own genes, the product of almighty Evolution,
>then so be it.
Good. But that meme was created by Evolution. God is dead, long live God.
>I think that, even though there is no Ragnarok, we should adopt a
>similar determination.
As you can probably tell from my previous remarks, I belive Ragnarok _is_
coming. The world as we know it is going to be destroyed, and a new world
created. And we'll get to watch it all on CNN.
Thanks,
Dave Leeper
dleeper@sybase.com
"Ragnarok 'n' Roll!" - Dave Leeper
-------------------------
>>We are at
>>a point in history where a new kind of thinking is going to be required to
>>ensure our survival on this planet and beyond. Perhaps THAT is a
motivation
>>for bringing Virus to the masses.
>GIVE ME A BREAK. The world is not going to be saved by a few dozen folks
>posting strange stuff on the net.
That was sort of the point.
>Besides, the world doesn't need to be
>saved. Our genes have everything under control. Our memes will be hard
>pressed to overthrow that control.
Perhaps the world doesn't need to be saved. But if we are the most powerful
and only sentient species on the planet, we should exercise some kind of
ecological responsibility.
Surely you are aware of certain data which indicates possibly catastrophic
dangers to the biosphere and to humanity. Even if the world is in tip-top
shape, it's difficult to ignore the fact that the vast majority of our
fellow human beings are living in poverty. Forget cars, Armanis and
consumer electronics. A significant portion of our species has a difficult
enough time finding something to eat on a regular basis. We have evolved
genetically from a history in which our largest social group was a village
or perhaps a tribe. Even with our phenomenal minds which allow us to adapt
so readily to almost any environment, we are becoming a collectively
schizophrenic species. We are simply not built to live in communities of
BILLIONS. (Please forgive any implication of evolutionary purpose or design
in that statement!) If we do not alter our meme-complexes radically
enough....
One more point. I care about my memes. I don't give a damn what my genes
say, except as they are indirectly represented in my memes. One meme of
mine is that you fight for what you believe is right to the end. If that
means going up against my own genes, the product of almighty Evolution,
then so be it.
I always liked Norse mythological heroes better than Classical ones because
the Classical ones didn't really do anything. I mean, if I had all the help
Aeneas had from the Gods, *I* could have founded Rome, too. The Norse
heroes, on the other hand, faced certain doom. Yet they persevered in their
efforts. I think that, even though there is no Ragnarok, we should adopt a
similar determination.
Hope I haven't wandered too far from the discussion!
Tyson Vaughan
Memetic engineer
Graphic designer
tvaughan@mailhost.accesscom.net