From: naccts (naccts@bowmans.info)
Date: Tue Jun 03 2003 - 15:51:15 MDT
AS> "Should" is a troublesome word. Should as in a moral ought, or should as
AS> in always present?
There will always be inferiors and superiors. That's a fact where the
fittest feeds upon the weakest. Predators, right?
The way I see it, Overmen (those having overcome their human
limits/capacities) will be above the humans. A plausible scenario is
that humans will be used as *unconscious* servants/slaves by the
overmen. It's natural.
AS> And why the assumption that evolution is always good
AS> or present?
Evolution is always about the survival of those who can adapt the
most. In that sense, it is good. It is about the persistence of life
and eventually (given adequate conditions) sentience.
It is always present, one way or the other. The fact that it can
hardly be noticed (though sometimes it is happening in a way that it
cannot easily be seen or understood as it does not comply to criteria set by
general consensus), that doesn't mean that it's not happening. The
lifetime of average man is negligible when compared to millenia.
Yet... :)
AS> Yes. Or at least differential selection. However, the amount of
AS> variability in the genome that produces the maximal expected increase in
AS> fitness varies over time. Imagine a fitness landscape with a single
AS> peak in the otherwise fairly flat surface, and a population starting
AS> somewhere down on the plain. At the start the optimal variance is very
AS> high, but most individuals have the same fitness. Then a few find the
AS> foothills of the mountain, and the differences in fitness between
AS> individuals increase. As the population climbs the mountain the optimal
AS> variance decreases, since the maximum is more likely closer than far
AS> away. Eventually the population ends up on the top and variance should
AS> be very small - there is no more fitness to find, and everybody has
AS> nearly the same fitness again.
And the cycle begins anew...with the emergence of superiors until
everybody reaches the same level (enthropy) and it starts again...
AS> Why assume a chain (i.e. a scalar fitness)? Things are far more
AS> multidimensional, and one can evolve towards many different niches and
AS> goals. I do not see a chain of being as a goal, but rather an immense
AS> tree of clades.
Seen in an overall point of view, yes. but invidually...I wonder...
Following a straight chain, superiority will exist. Even in a
multimensional aspect it may prevail. But this is all relative...there
will be one specie who will dominate in most environments (this is
what man is doing right now, no? Not naturally of course, but nature
is not the only thing behind evoluton now...)
BIL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 03 2003 - 16:00:13 MDT