You appear to be replying more to your post than to mine. :)
I am arguing in favor of selecting out a representative stock of humans
that eschew enhancement. Not necessarily just the Amish and Mennonites.
Maybe we should have a lottery for people who want to enhance. Maybe we
should have a lottery for people who will be forced to not be enhanced.
A genetic Ponzi scheme is what I was talking about--too obliquely, it
would seem. Hey, if some steroids are good, more must be better, right?
Etc.
"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> Ah, but lotteries breed lucky people (a la Niven) if there is such a
> thing, so it is selecting for 'something'. Paranormal researchers should
> be testing people that have won multiple lotteries.
>
> "Michael M. Butler" wrote:
> >
> > We need some sort of "control natural" law, too (ref: Papa Heinlein).
> > Think hybrid vigor, vintage seed catalogs, etc. Carrying on with the
> > analogy, selecting for beauty or too particular a kind of "intelligence"
> > could lead to monocultures that are vulnerable to Ponzi schemes, etc.
> >
> > "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, No, it's better to play the lottery than invest...
> > >
> > > Thats right. Investing takes hard work (thinking) and 'lots of money'
> > > (i.e. money many would prefer spending on beer and smokes). Anyone can
> > > play the lottery on spare change. ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:32 MDT