In a message dated 11/30/1999 4:23:15 PM EST, Ken@InnovationOnDmnd.com writes:
<< I would like you to consider that certain changes are about to happen which
essentially guarantee that the future will not be just the past writ larger.
During the last 50,000 years human nature has changed very slowly while the
memes around us have evolved very rapidly. This is why you see the
similarities
between villages of old and cities of today. The slow pace of change of
human
nature has acted as a stabilizing force on the rapid change of the
technology.
I believe it is our limitations that primarily define what we are, and
provide a
context in which our accomplishments have meaning. (I also believe this is
why
we write constitutions for institutions and make them difficult to change, as
well as avoid self modifying code unless there's no other way to do it.)>>
I think that evolution is a conservative process (or maybe semi-conservative), where change usually only occurs in small increments unless the change is highly adaptive. Most changes are not very adaptive, and are usually either neutral or deleterious. Society works this way as well as biology. Unless there is a clear advantage to the changes that are coming (and there may be), then change will continue to be slow (likely in most areas). Also, I think another reason that organisms and institutions tend to conserve their structure is that although a change in isolation may be beneficial, it may lead to other changes that are overall deleterious. The changes not only have to be qualitatively better, but have to mesh in with the rest of the structure that is not changing. Further, making many changes at once can sometimes be deleterious because of unforeseen interactions between those changes; they may not "hang together" as well as the previous structure. I still believe that radical changes can occur, and can be beneficial, but it is more the exception than the rule.
<<The unprecedented event that is about to happen is the removal of the
limitation
that human nature only change slowly. Our memes have evolved to the point of
handing us the tools necessary to reach inside ourselves and change anything.
Together with the tremendous capability this promises, a basic failure of
pattern integrity will probably result as a Pandora's box of positive
feedback
loops are unleashed to spiral out of control.>>
<<As an example, I would like to quote a scene from a movie, although I
generally
try not to do this because movies are based on the suspension of disbelief.
The
movie is _Lawrence of Arabia_, and the scene takes place while Lawrence is
out
in the desert with his guide and they are talking late into the night. The
guide is trying to understand why Lawrence, who is would be well off in
England,
a rich country, would be wandering around out there in the desert, where
there
is basically nothing, when he (Lawrence) could have "whatever you want".
Lawrence replied, "Yes, but you can't want what you want". In the future it
will be possible to reach in and select what you want (your motivation).
Having
done so, you will have changed a basic component of your identity, most
likely
leading to more change.>>
<>
I agree that anything that relies on limitations to preserve their integrity will in trouble when limitations become academic. I personally have never defined myself by my limitations, and thus feel comfortable with their eventual removal. However, I happen to by-and-large want what I want, so I am unlikely to change most of my core desires, motivations, and drives. I may get rid of some of the more autonomic ones should they no longer be necessary, such as hunger, thirst, etc., but curiosity, compassion, loyalty are likely to be with me a long, long, long time.
Glen Finney