From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 19:28:59 MDT
NACCTS asked:
<<The core of my ramblings is this: Isn't it a natural proccess that there should always be superiors and inferiors? Or else how can there be any evolution/progress? If all entities were equal, wouldn't that mean stagnancy and eventually enthropy? Evolution, the way I understand it, involves changes, differences. I don't want to get into an argument about racial discrimination, far from that. But I'm thinking about Nietzsche and the Overman. >>
First, my feeble understanding of the modern understanding of evolution is that when Darwin said "Survival of the Fitest" he did not mean the strongest; he mean't the most successfully adaptive. If strong is what is needed to succeed, fine; if running or flying like a bat out of hell works well enough, so you can breed and pass along your traits. also good.
As for humans, I suspect that what succeeds for humans is not only academic skills, but social competition. The most agressive and assertive persons, who possess people skills and the ability to hire good speech writers and policy makers and deliver said speeches, is what these Republics we live in are all about.
The most intellectually gifted in astronomy, for example, are not at the exact head of the chow-line. I mean, astronomers do well enough, and love what they do, but their paychecks do not match that of Corporation CEO's (Pre-Prison income only!)
The real fun will begin, later in this century when People Helpers (A.I. Proggies) start to assist folks in making life decisions; some of which will be business decisions, and yes, who to vote against. Later implementations will surely include some kind of brain-pc interface, that one caries around-no typing or speaking necessary.
This will certainly up-end the social system, because people who follow sound advice, usually wind up smelling like a rose.
Will the Rich race to supply themselves with uber brains to keep them on top, restrict use of such devices to themselves? People who are integrated with super A.I's will be a force to reckon, in themselves. They are BORG! Or at least people who won't be horn-swoggled.
attached mail follows:
I've been thinking that animal evolution resides in the old jungle
law: the survival of the fittest. And this is well reflected in the
supposedly civilised/superior humanity.
It's still all about the domination of the strongest entity (whether
individual or group). And that applies to any human field. By
strongest, of course I don't imply only physical strength but
everything that can provide any edge over others.
The core of my ramblings is this: Isn't it a natural proccess that
there should always be superiors and inferiors? Or else how can there
be any evolution/progress? If all entities were equal, wouldn't that
mean stagnancy and eventually enthropy? Evolution, the way I
understand it, involves changes, differences. I don't want to get
into an argument about racial discrimination, far from that. But I'm
thinking about Nietzsche and the Overman. If we want to evolve, does
that mean that at some time, we will have to consider the rest of
humanity as inferiors (lower on the
intellectual/emotional/physical/etc chain)? How does that fit into
our ethical code of conduct?
I hope that I'm making myself clear enough. :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 19:42:20 MDT