This is a Journal entry by Mark Rest

42

Post 1

Mark Rest

I think Douglas Adams hit the nail on the head when he likened the earth to a computer that is in the process of working out the ultimate question of Life, the Universe and Everything. What I'd like to know is how close is it to coming up with something.

I think Richard Dawkins has got very close with his theory of evolution. For anybody who is not familiar with his work its a kind of extended dawinism.

I think Jacob Bronoski also got very close with the Ascent of Man which by some amazing coincidence Douglas Adams introduces. 


42

Post 2

Si

Yep. The Earth - Computer analogy goes "ching" with you too, eh? It's not complete, though, as it implies that there will be a final, definitive result for which we wait. Those that wait, though, wait in vain because the "answer" is constantly displayed and updated. That is what "we" (biology, not humanity) are - the current "state" of life's algorithm. You allude to this elsewhere on your page when you say, "we're here because we're here". Sounds glib, doesn't it? I suppose it is, but it's close enough to the truth until we have something better. What I see as the truth, anyway.

That's exactly how GAs work, BTW, and why many don't like them - they never "finish". They might stablise and converge on an answer (pause here and picture humanity looking at itself and saying, "aren't we fantastic?"), but change the fitness test (environment) or introduce enough mutation and off they go, constantly adapting to fit their new niche.

I haven't seen "The Ascent of Man", but I think I ought to try and find it. I'm fascinated by the evolution of our specie but many works in this area seem to suggest that humans are in some way "special" or "different" from the rest of the biosphere. As a student of Dawkins, you'll see the nonsense in that. We're no better adapted to our environment than Kangaroos are to theirs, it's just that we were pushed very hard by what must have been extremely harsh selection pressure over the last 4 millions years or so, and the tools we had to find (language, hand tools etc.) have been exceptionaly useful in many different areas. Our extended phenotype is an empressive spectacle, but it's still only a beaver's dam - it modifies our environment to make it an easier fit. If the beaver had been subject to this kind of rampant selection pressure instead of us, who'd be wearing the trousers (and building the churches) now?

Not sure about that last couple of sentences, what do you think? Humanism bothers me, but am I selling us too short?

Good work on an interesting page(s).

Three stars, eh? Kewl!

Anyway, I'm off to follow some of your links.


Phenotypes

Post 3

Mark Rest

I haven't read the extended phenotype as my family don't what be looking at to much Dawkins stuff. You see I got very stressed reading about the darker side of evolution.

Dawkins says you have to read the book but could you give me a summary.

As for your last few sentences they ring true with me. incidently I'm going to church now, not because I believe in anything beyond evolution but just that being nice to people is important. If we are not all nice to people and animals and plants and rocks then who knows what the consequences are. Ultimately isn't the an end to the universe or is that just when our sun supernovas into a black hole.

Maybe you can see why I got stressed.


Dark side of the gene

Post 4

Si

Yes I can. You've fallen into the trap that Dawkins warned you about at the beginning of TSG (or was it the end?), that selfish gene does not mean selfish organism, that short term altruism can offer long term selfish benefits.

By way of an example, consider the neo-Gaian "Fragile Earth" bullshit that underpins most conservationism. The popular consensus seems to be that we have a responsibility to "mother earth" to safeguard the future of all life with which we share "her" surface. We believe this under the misconseption that the biosphere, the "future of life as a whole", is some super-fragile Faberge Egg constantly teetering on the brink of extinction. That's rubbish. What *is* fragile is the Status Quo, life as we know it, the environment upon which we depend. We (humanity) depend, among other things, on the water cycle. If we destroy some critical part of that cycle we, and many other species will suffer and perhaps disappear. Much of life on earth, however, the simpler, more hardy species, will carry on. Many organisms less dependent on that which we have destroyed will adapt. Can you image a scenario in which we create such an immense global catastrophe that *all* replicating organisms are wiped out? Lovelock couldn't.

Anyway, I was saying that life *as we know (and like) it* is that which we need to preserve. It is *our* future that we are working for and that *should* be the basis for conservationism. Can you see how the agenda is actually a humanist one? We are really looking after number one - *that* is why the rain forests are so precious.

I agree wholeheartedly, BTW, with conservationism's aims. What I disagree with is the *lie* that we hold in our hands the continuation of all life. We're not that powerful, it'll just evolve around our mistakes (though we might not.)

Well, that was supposed to be a defence of the selfish gene but it wandered smiley - smiley. You see, though, that in order to further our own selfish future we must behave altruistically to a whole host of others.


42

Post 5

Mark Rest

regarding finding copies of the Ascent of Man, We its out of print so You'll have to go down the library. If you get the UK horizons TV channels you might get lucky if they show it again.


phenotypes

Post 6

Mark Rest

Thanx for the explanation I'm a bit dumbstruck. I'm sitting here with my wife she seemed to understand it better than me. I think I'll come back to this one. I've got a thirst to read the book now.


Key: Complain about this post

More Conversations for Mark Rest

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more