On Wednesday, March 22, 2000 12:41 PM Earthlink Bear Account
>Dear friends-- Following on with my personal obsession right =ow, I'd
>suggest funding for research in the linguistic and neural net bases of
>biological interactions, from the genome on up through brains and on
>to ecosystems. Understanding and predicting how biological systems
>=oordinate, communicate, and translate communications into physiology
>and behavior =s going to be the biggest problem facing us in the life
>sciences in the next century--and it's traditionally been an area of little
>interest and =ven considerable bias.
Greg might like _Evolution as Entropy_ (2/e) by Brooks and Wiley. They use
some linguistics methods in their account of biological evolution. See also
Elisabeth Lloyd's _The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory_,
which uses semantic analysis of biological theories. Different approaches,
but similar in many ways, and similar to what Greg is getting at here, I
>Removing the bias (an effort which is =nderway, and proceeding very
>slowly) and then funding research and conferences = on biological
>language systems and cooperative interaction would go a long =ay
>to pushing the science.
Or, to be paranoid, create better ways for us to be marketed and PRed into
following whomever is on top.:/ Sorry, must have been coopted by a Luddite
meme for a second there.:)
>And frankly, we're not going to survive on Mars until we can
>design a = low-energy, stable, and robust ecosystem that
>can support humans for years. We quite =imply do not have
>the theoretical understanding necessary to design such a
>=ystem, and trial and error attempts (leading possibly to a
>multi-billion dollar =pace disaster) could push our planetary
>exploration program back by =ecades.
I think the problem with this is why Mars? Why escape one gravity well only
to plunge into another one? See below.
>Biosphere 2 in its early, idealistic incarnation is a sobering
>reminder =f how naive we still are!
Ignorance is a constant companion, but part of the problem here is the
notion that one should have a closed system at all. Why not design simpler
systems which could be replenished? After we have a foothold in space, one
could worry about designing some ideal construct of a life support system.
I'd rather do that than wait until everyone feels confident about another
>Such research, of course,
>could be fed back immediately into everything =rom disease
>control to environmental remediation to designing a world
>=iological community that would comfortably support the twenty
>billion or so people =e might expect by 2050, given longevity
>and health = improvements that would also follow. To make
>the next long leap, we have to understand much more about
>who we =re and how we function together and in nature,
>and how nature functions with =nd without us.
Perhaps, but again, understanding will always lag behind. I'd rather not
wait until all the problems are solved. It wouldn't be as much fun.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:09 MDT