adhocboy

all is form. that is the basic tenet of relativity. structure is not a property of substance; structure is all that there is. substance is the illusion. space, then, is structure and not infinite. maybe really frick'n big, but not infinite.

Dictionary smictionary. Natural selection is more robust than genes. With the risk of sounding too spiritual, natural selection is a process that goes beyond organic forms. Successful or functional design is perpetuated in proportion to its utility. As intelligent animals our behavior and culture are under the influence of natural selection ('memes'). Again, for the purist it sounds like a bunch of baloney. But the reality is that functional forms are propogated.

er, i think i know who needs the 'skittles'...

what if intelligence were somehow counter to survival? I mean, I have hear that a religious disposition increases life span... maybe, just maybe, our collective intelligence is declining and technology was the product of a declension not ascension of a species. It would be interesting to understand which human traits are becoming stronger. That would tell us a lot about not only the future, but what is subtly important today.

getting rid of bad genes, or simply not investing in perfect ones? If the cost/benefit ratio was poor, as it is, I would expect all sexual species to avoid investing in lifespan post sexual reproduction. Then the question becomes, if an organism lives forever it can reproduce forever. True, like a poker player who bets a small amount each game can stay in the mix a LONG time. But the goal is to succeed quickly, using all of your resources in the most efficient manner possible. Right? lol. Nature gave us infinite life - it's called 'cancer'. We don't like it because it destroys the form and function of the rest of the organism. A biological sort of anarchy in an organism formed by rules and term limits.

I'm sorry, I missed the point. Why is killing wrong, again? (I know about the 10 commandments thing, but that is a convenant between man and god, not a moral law.)

Not sure I buy it. 1. Human intelligence is largely hereditary. This is definitely true of our capacity for intelligence, but individual and social intelligence are learned. That is, even two genetically identical plants may grow to different sizes if one has more sunlight and water available to it. So, environment plays a significant role. 2. Civilization depends totally upon innate intelligence. Without innate intelligence, civilization would never have been created. When intelligence declines, so does civilization. Whose intelligence? That is, is the intellectual achievement of a civilization the product of a mean average of its citizenry, or the product of a smaller subclass? What is the role of writing; a technology that passes the learning of one generation to offspring (sometimes skipping multiple generations). In any event, the historical actuality of churn - the cyclical rise and fall of civilizations - suggests a possible different pattern than straight-line progression. 3. The higher the level of civilization, the better off the population. Civilization is not an either-or proposition. Rather, it's a matter of degree, and each degree, up or down, affects the well-being of every citizen. 4. At the present time, we are evolving to become less intelligent with each new generation. Why is this happening? Simple: the least-intelligent people are having the most children. This is a difficult conclusion. As I said before, it is clear that the professionally proficient show a markedly slower birth rate. But again, is their personal success the result of innate ability or just a favorable environment. Even so, to what degree do the masses versus the proficient subclass influence overall civil intelligence? I won't say the statement is false; it just sounds too simple. It is like saying because more people can survive childhood we are less fit as a society - it is true, but is offset by our apparent ability to change our local environment. I am not seeing how adaptable intelligence makes us 'fragile' as a species. 5. Unless we halt or reverse this trend, our civilization will invariably decline. Any decline in civilization produces a commensurate increase in the collective "misery quotient." Totally unknown. Again, the generational change in a set of traits can not be construed as 'decline'. We are confusing the principle of natural selection. The individuals that are being born are from 'successful' families. When we changed our environment, we changed the definition of fitness. Natural selection is often portrayed as a battle between winners and losers... it is a popular expression of the phenomena. But it is more subtle than that. Life, as a process, exploits metastable energy in the environment. These families were are classifying as 'innately less intelligent' have found a sound of untapped resources they are exploiting. Or, said another way: when intelligence is important for survival, it will be selected for and increase within a population. Obviously, a different set of traits are necessary for survival right now.