What Darwin said.

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

What Darwin said.

Post by uwot »

Thought this might cheer some of you up. (Less so some others) http://video.genfb.com/1692884857673653
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9557
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: What Darwin said.

Post by Harbal »

uwot wrote: Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:27 am Thought this might cheer some of you up. (Less so some others) http://video.genfb.com/1692884857673653
It would cheer me up if people started to behave that way.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What Darwin said.

Post by uwot »

Yeah. Too many in the wind section think they're the conductor.
Impenitent
Posts: 4329
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: What Darwin said.

Post by Impenitent »

uwot wrote: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:32 pm Yeah. Too many in the wind section think they're the conductor.
are you suggesting the conductor should break wind?

-Imp
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: What Darwin said.

Post by thedoc »

Impenitent wrote: Sun Aug 06, 2017 3:47 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:32 pm Yeah. Too many in the wind section think they're the conductor.
are you suggesting the conductor should break wind?

-Imp
Perhaps the conductor wouldn't be so stuffed up if he did.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What Darwin said.

Post by Greta »

uwot wrote: Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:32 pm Yeah. Too many in the wind section think they're the conductor.
Actually, it seems that some of the audience is angry that laypersons are never being allowed to conduct. After all, what would elites know? [sic]

Still, cooperation tends to be in-group, which means there are exclusions who will not enjoy that in-group cooperating with each other against them. I think the wild really is terribly harsh, which is why humans couldn't get out of there fast enough. So the idea is to transcend the harshness of nature, to find a way of being for at least humans not to hurt so much. Mixed results so far, along with wicked sustainability problems.

Cancer is basically failed/misdirected metamorphosis. A metamorphosing insect is reduced to mush before re-forming. If a metamorphosis fails then the dynamics of that process would be similar to cancer - the breakdown of ordered tissue into less ordered tissue. So the biosphere may well be metamorphosing via humans, although in nature success/survival is never certain.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: What Darwin said.

Post by uwot »

Greta wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amActually, it seems that some of the audience is angry that laypersons are never being allowed to conduct. After all, what would elites know? [sic]
Someone on this forum once informed me that I was "educated to imbecility", from which I infer they would rather listen to people who know nothing. There's a lot of people whose definition of a genius, is someone who agrees with them.
Greta wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amStill, cooperation tends to be in-group, which means there are exclusions who will not enjoy that in-group cooperating with each other against them. I think the wild really is terribly harsh, which is why humans couldn't get out of there fast enough.
I dunno, you might have the same rose-tinted view of nature that I do, had you been brought up in Surrey, where the greatest danger posed by nature, is the occasional stray root that might trip you up. Admittedly we eliminated all the bears and wolves several hundred years ago, but there is more danger in one bucketful of Australia, than the entire south east of England.
Greta wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amSo the idea is to transcend the harshness of nature, to find a way of being for at least humans not to hurt so much.
Well, the tragedy is that nature generally survives by eating itself, which does make for a harsh environment. The alternative is photosynthesis, which given the evidence that we are turning into vegetables, could be the future.
Greta wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amMixed results so far, along with wicked sustainability problems.
Yeah. I made the point elsewhere, that human beings are unique, in that they practise every form of courtship that is found in nature. The same is true of business/politics. There are predators and parasites, that exploit the resources and effort of others.
Greta wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amCancer is basically failed/misdirected metamorphosis. A metamorphosing insect is reduced to mush before re-forming. If a metamorphosis fails then the dynamics of that process would be similar to cancer - the breakdown of ordered tissue into less ordered tissue. So the biosphere may well be metamorphosing via humans, although in nature success/survival is never certain.
Who knows? In the short term, we could do worse than rejecting a model that serves the aims of the predators and parasites, by creating so much debt, that the future goodwill of several generations is owned by people who have more money than the current value of the entire planet.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: What Darwin said.

Post by Greta »

uwot wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:28 pm
Greta wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amStill, cooperation tends to be in-group, which means there are exclusions who will not enjoy that in-group cooperating with each other against them. I think the wild really is terribly harsh, which is why humans couldn't get out of there fast enough.
I dunno, you might have the same rose-tinted view of nature that I do, had you been brought up in Surrey, where the greatest danger posed by nature, is the occasional stray root that might trip you up. Admittedly we eliminated all the bears and wolves several hundred years ago, but there is more danger in one bucketful of Australia, than the entire south east of England.
The dangers of Australia's wildlife caused me far less grief than the kids at my high school and some dodgy types I ran into in bars and workplaces. More seriously, I was thinking about the suffering of wild animals and humans - short, dangerous lives, high infant mortality, ridden with parasites, exposed to the elements ... not my cuppa.
uwot wrote:
Greta wrote:So the idea is to transcend the harshness of nature, to find a way of being for at least humans not to hurt so much.
Well, the tragedy is that nature generally survives by eating itself, which does make for a harsh environment. The alternative is photosynthesis, which given the evidence that we are turning into vegetables, could be the future.
Yes, hopefully technology will help future humans become more autotrophic, and I suspect that people's lives will be increasingly lived in the digital world (as we are doing as we write), which is much less energy intensive than physical travel and consumption. If born later I'd personally be keen for a nice, pain-free synthetic body, downloadable mind and unlimited digital resources in an immersive digitised world. That might be the only way to render intelligent life safe to others.
uwot wrote:
Greta wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amMixed results so far, along with wicked sustainability problems.
Yeah. I made the point elsewhere, that human beings are unique, in that they practise every form of courtship that is found in nature. The same is true of business/politics. There are predators and parasites, that exploit the resources and effort of others.
Interesting connections. Animals strike me as single-purpose appliances - very good at one thing - while humans are versatile like computers (and capable of being just as useless as computers - GIGO).
uwot wrote:
Greta wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:06 amCancer is basically failed/misdirected metamorphosis. A metamorphosing insect is reduced to mush before re-forming. If a metamorphosis fails then the dynamics of that process would be similar to cancer - the breakdown of ordered tissue into less ordered tissue. So the biosphere may well be metamorphosing via humans, although in nature success/survival is never certain.
Who knows? In the short term, we could do worse than rejecting a model that serves the aims of the predators and parasites, by creating so much debt, that the future goodwill of several generations is owned by people who have more money than the current value of the entire planet.
I'm not sure anyone is directing change or has any control at all. Things will certainly change, but not usually because anyone is directing the change. We seem to work more like large flocks of birds and fish schools, where a slight majority of preferences to go in a certain direction results in the immediate change in that direction, as if controlled by a leader. The concept also reminds me the metronomes on a roller board experiment where they all gradually move to consensus - group dynamics created by pure physics.
Post Reply