The small people: Cats!
All 4 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 20, 11:15 am show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Oct 2004 11:15:49 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 20 2004 11:15 am
Subject: The small people: Cats!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
>8{<
Cats are fantastic! There`s people who don`t like cats, but that
wouldn`t stop a determined cat from adopting them gladly. If you want
to learn dignity, you just have to watch a cat after you deposit him
on the floor...if the cat didn`t want to be hug. He`ll go away slowly
and gravely, without turning back, after combing himself as a complain
for such an invasion of his privacy...
A cat will look at you with some interest and maybe will smile,
blinking his eyes in a total equivalent of the human smile. Adore him
and he will exhibit himself. But mistreat him and you`ll have a small
creature very hurt, who won`t miss any opportunity to take a small
revenge, maybe by wetting your most cherished books or scratching his
paws in that place *he* knows *you* don`t want him to scratch. How did
he know? Only he knows, but he knows more than you think.
As a rule you have to treat a cat like people and he will treat you
like a cat. Very polite. And lovely. What a cat likes most is to have
a nice place to sleep on top of you without being molested, though his
natural good nature will know how to accomodate your stubborn need to
move in bed. He knows how to contemporize, how to flow.
A cat always knows what he likes and what he doesn`t like. In case of
doubt, he uses his paws. And something he definitely likes is a clean
litter, even two, which he expects you to keep clean at all times. Oh,
and of course, variety and abundance in food. They can`t understand
how come humans are so territorial and discriminating with their food
and don`t let them eat like people eat, on a table from a proper
dish...
Reply
Tiny Human Ferret Oct 20, 3:28 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: Tiny Human Ferret - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:28:18 -0400
Local: Wed, Oct 20 2004 3:28 pm
Subject: Re: The small people: Cats!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
>>8{<
> Cats are fantastic!
Meow.
--
The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
--Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 20, 7:52 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Oct 2004 19:52:44 -0700
Local: Wed, Oct 20 2004 7:52 pm
Subject: Re: The small people: Cats!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>8{<
Cats are fantastic! There`s people who don`t like cats, but that
wouldn`t stop a determined cat from adopting them gladly. If you want
to learn dignity, you just have to watch a cat after you deposit him
on the floor...if the cat didn`t want to be hug. He`ll go away slowly
and gravely, without turning back, after combing himself as a complain
for such an invasion of his privacy...
A cat will look at you with some interest and maybe will smile,
blinking his eyes in a total equivalent of the human smile. Adore him
and he will exhibit himself. But mistreat him and you`ll have a small
creature very hurt, who won`t miss any opportunity to take a small
revenge, maybe by wetting your most cherished books or scratching his
paws in that place *he* knows *you* don`t want him to scratch. How did
he know? Only he knows, but he knows more than you think.
As a rule you have to treat a cat like people and he will treat you
like a cat. Very polite. And lovely. What a cat likes most is to have
a nice place to sleep on top of you without being molested, though his
natural good nature will know how to accomodate your stubborn need to
move in bed. He knows how to contemporize, how to flow.
A cat always knows what he likes and what he doesn`t like. In case of
doubt, he uses his paws. And something he definitely likes is a clean
litter, even two, which he expects you to keep clean at all times. Oh,
and of course, variety and abundance in food. They can`t understand
how come humans are so territorial and discriminating with their food
and don`t let them eat like people eat, on a table from a proper
dish
...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Nov 17, 4:22 pm show options
Newsgroups: ny.general,tx.general,seattle.general,la.general,dc.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Nov 2004 16:22:26 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 17 2004 4:22 pm
Subject: Re: The small people: Cats!
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Cats are small people because:
*they can only live among us
*they play
*they bring gifts (have you ever found a dead mouse on your bed with
the cat?) *they like to be complimented (for the mouse)
*they are possessive
*they are jealous
*they complain
*they have intent and motivations
*they like clean litter
*they need to be cuddled
*they can go depressed
*they are vengeful
*they can be mean
*they have cat friendships
*they collect toys
*they have cat language
*they understand symbolism
*they speak to themselves (some)
*they get resented
*they like food variety
*they are stubborn
*they smile (by blinking)
*they come in different colors (like us)
*they are no-goods (inutiles)
*they have no predators
*they have favoritisms
*they bathe (themselves, of course)
*they are lazy
*they can make you feel pitiful (ever tried to give him bad food?)
*they have dignity
*they have face expression (ears)
*their brain structure is like ours
*they yawn
*they can`t be trained (unlike dogs)
*they can be quite dumb or quite intelligent
*some cats have a comic venue (Novo!)
*some cats are authoritative (Liza...)
*some cats establish dialog
*cats dream and have nightmares
*some cats are cowards
*some cats are bullies
*cats enjoy games
*cats can recognize us
*cats distinguish our sex and are biased to the other sex
*some cats are gay (Novo...)
*cats can fall in love
*cats suffer separation
*cats like to be admired (and know when they are being admired)
*cats can make decisions
*cats are surprising
*cats are patient
*cats can lose patience
*cats know when they go too far
*cats are curious
*cats like novelty
*cats are exigent
*cats know when people cry and are moved
*cats make caresses (with their tongue)
*cats are untuous (lambiscones)
*cats may go desperate
*cats know when they make frolics (and you will complain)
*cats like to be praised
*cats are fantastic!
*cats are people
Reply
Future of Man: the Speciation Process
All 21 messages in topic - view as tree
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Sep 14, 9:34 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Sep 2004 21:34:54 -0700
Local: Tues, Sep 14 2004 9:34 pm
Subject: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
change is so slow that for practical purposes is irrelevant. And yet
the basic requirements for the speciation process in Man are already
given.
There are, not only geographical barriers to cross breeding but also
sociopolitical ones. In fact, each national state is in itself a
melting pot where one of the possible futures of Man is being born.
There are strong barriers to cross race procreation. How long before
those barriers turn from social to biological ones? Strictly speaking,
the Down syndrome children are *already* a different species; a
different number of chromosomes which, if allowed to interbreed will
eventually lead to a totally different species, unable to procreate
with `normal` humans. Exactly what space of possibilities in the
Reality of biological beings will they be exploring, quite literally
only they know. To many people they are indeed special, and that
speciality might in te future reveal in interesting ways if a
population of them is allowed to form and develop for itself.
Even is Reason is the defining characteristic in the human species
doesn`t mean that it must remain so for the unforseeable future. Whole
populations can be interbreeding to select, from a social (mores,
prejudices) point of view, characteristics that emphatize not an
increase in intelligence but a decrease, an involution. Nowhere says
or is written that intelligence as we know it must remain in the
definition of the species. Though language very probably will remain a
basic characteristic of future humanities (too useful to ignore),
different roles for it may develop accordingly to other biological
characteristics and different humanities may grant it a bigger or
lesser importance in their everyday behaviour (there are societies
that read an write little, while others dedicate lots of resource to
verbal and/or written communication). DNA is a language that changes
in subtle and almost continuous way, give the enormous quatities of
information that go in the definition of an individual.
Unfortunately, this speciation process is such that it introduces
tensions in the human family. By its mere definition, the speciation
process can lead to wars and other social unrest among Nations. That
we be able to manage this divergent differences peacefully is one of
the most challenging aspects of the future of Man...
Reply
Joseph H Sep 16, 1:08 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: jos...@humanisation.org (Joseph H) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Sep 2004 13:08:15 -0700
Local: Thurs, Sep 16 2004 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
> change is so slow that for practical purposes is irrelevant. And yet
> the basic requirements for the speciation process in Man are already
> given.
Ciao, Fabrizio. Question: if the speciation process is so slow why are
we discussing it? Are there not more urgent matters?
> There are, not only geographical barriers to cross breeding but also
> sociopolitical ones. In fact, each national state is in itself a
> melting pot where one of the possible futures of Man is being born.
> There are strong barriers to cross race procreation. How long before
> those barriers turn from social to biological ones? Strictly speaking,
> the Down syndrome children are *already* a different species; a
> different number of chromosomes which, if allowed to interbreed will
> eventually lead to a totally different species, unable to procreate
> with `normal` humans. Exactly what space of possibilities in the
> Reality of biological beings will they be exploring, quite literally
> only they know. To many people they are indeed special, and that
> speciality might in te future reveal in interesting ways if a
> population of them is allowed to form and develop for itself.
This is somewhat clinical, is it not? I think most science would be
more concerned with finding a resolution to the chromosomal difficulty
than with observing where it might eventually lead us. Okay, I know,
the spirit of inquiry etc, but...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Even is Reason is the defining characteristic in the human species
> doesn`t mean that it must remain so for the unforseeable future. Whole
> populations can be interbreeding to select, from a social (mores,
> prejudices) point of view, characteristics that emphatize not an
> increase in intelligence but a decrease, an involution. Nowhere says
> or is written that intelligence as we know it must remain in the
> definition of the species. Though language very probably will remain a
> basic characteristic of future humanities (too useful to ignore),
> different roles for it may develop accordingly to other biological
> characteristics and different humanities may grant it a bigger or
> lesser importance in their everyday behaviour (there are societies
> that read an write little, while others dedicate lots of resource to
> verbal and/or written communication). DNA is a language that changes
> in subtle and almost continuous way, give the enormous quatities of
> information that go in the definition of an individual.
Can't honestly see the connexion between the main theme of that
paragraph and the final sentence. Certainly language - to take an
example - might be devalued. But the way to counter this is to exalt
certain aspects of our human endowment. Indeed, the only way we can
counter all the forthcoming challenges that advanced technology,
knowledge etc, may put in our way is - again - to so exalt certain
aspects of human ability and human past, to exalt them so that they
become effectively the replacement for religion. This is close to
humanism - but it is not humanism. It is much more radical. It is a
recognition and exaltation of our human place in the cosmos. (See my
web-site www.humanisation.org).
Your final sentence, on the other hand, is a very well expressed
statement of fact.
> Unfortunately, this speciation process is such that it introduces
> tensions in the human family. By its mere definition, the speciation
> process can lead to wars and other social unrest among Nations. That
> we be able to manage this divergent differences peacefully is one of
> the most challenging aspects of the future of Man...
Yes, yes - but, again, there are more pressing matters, gene therapy,
cloning etc. Would these be cases of speciation?
Ciao
Joseph H
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Sep 16, 8:08 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Sep 2004 20:08:05 -0700
Local: Thurs, Sep 16 2004 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
jos...@humanisation.org (Joseph H) wrote in message ...
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> > (snip)
> Ciao, Fabrizio. Question: if the speciation process is so slow why are
> we discussing it? Are there not more urgent matters?
It is one of the possible futures. Actually I don`t know how slow it
is. European countries have a lower rate of birth than, say
latinamrican countries. Are there studies on how much that rate is a
consecuence of purely cultural aspects and how much depends on the
particular gene pool of a particular populations? Race intermixing is
close to anathema even in the most liberal societies, and national
frontiers are an effective barrier to procreation even in similar
populations. A good ethnologist can distinguish people by country of
origin and definitely there are populations that are very unlikely to
produce offspring; say, swedes and uruguayans, and not because of
racial prejudices but because of geographical, even language barriers.
Eventually these national populations will diverge in important ways
that will prevent them from procreating, most likely first by simple
sexual attraction (on average), later due to incompatibilities in
genotypes. I don`t know if there are `second order` (like in
differential analysis) studies geared toward differential fertility;
we may get a surprise, but then I guess there are certain combinations
for which we will fin few couples to perform those studies.
Yet what makes relevant the discussion is that the first `symptom` of
the speciation process in the human species, i.e., the isolation of
populations, is already in place as a _biological_, basic determinant
in social phenomena as common as racism, while at the same time social
phenomena can be interpreted from a biological point of view as
effective (or not so effective) barriers to procreation and
speciation. Many tensions that underlie the human family have their
origin in this urge of animals (no offense intended) to cluster with
the similars and repudiate the divergent. This principle, sort of
equivalent to electrical repulsion and attraction, is also exemplified
in the structuring of social hierarchies, where top and base are as
different as the group allows and procreation proceeds among
individuals in the same or contiguous levels. This is also a sort of
minimization of energy principle, as interaction with similars must be
more `economical` (for instance in terms of information processing of
behaviours, where it is easier to understand individuals who perform
the same kind of behaviors than it is to understand individuals with
different behaviours, or languages), will act on average as a survival
adaptation, and will have the concomitant effect of helping select
similar genotypes that minimize the possibility of errors during
reproduction. (Of course, this processes follow optimization schedules
with optima as goals to reach on complex surfaces).
> > (snip) only they know. To many people they are indeed special, and that
> > speciality might in te future reveal in interesting ways if a
> > population of them is allowed to form and develop for itself.
> This is somewhat clinical, is it not? I think most science would be
> more concerned with finding a resolution to the chromosomal difficulty
> than with observing where it might eventually lead us. Okay, I know,
> the spirit of inquiry etc, but...
? Maybe we can `correct` the DNA mistake, but meanwhile they are a
different species. I am not a social worker, but if two Down people
want to procreate I guess it would be more respectful to help them
find te necessary support than to simply say no. I expect more
knowledgeable people to comment on this idea.
> > (snip)
> > DNA is a language that changes
> > in subtle and almost continuous way, give the enormous quatities of
> > information that go in the definition of an individual.
> Can't honestly see the connexion between the main theme of that
> paragraph and the final sentence.
I admit that these posts are more notes than finished exercises, but
given my present circumstances and the interests from Mexico to prove
my work and the products of my inspiration are not mine (you can
search Fabrizio J Bonsignore in google groups and sort by date) I
prefer the occasional non-sequitur than leave an idea unattended and
then forget it. Sort of a race to outpublsh the thieves, who seems are
being treated as gods and heroes while I have to write from a public
phone booth with metal keys. I`ve already lost too much to thieves and
criminals and plagiarists. This is intended to be a serious study and
book but...
> Certainly language - to take an
> example - might be devalued. But the way to counter this is to exalt
> certain aspects of our human endowment. Indeed, the only way we can
> counter all the forthcoming challenges that advanced technology,
> knowledge etc, may put in our way is - again - to so exalt certain
> aspects of human ability and human past, to exalt them so that they
> become effectively the replacement for religion. This is close to
I don`t think religion per se can be replaced, but we may yet find
different kinds of mystical exercises, individual and grupal.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> humanism - but it is not humanism. It is much more radical. It is a
> recognition and exaltation of our human place in the cosmos. (See my
> web-site www.humanisation.org).
> Your final sentence, on the other hand, is a very well expressed
> statement of fact.
8)
> > Unfortunately, this speciation process is such that it introduces
> > tensions in the human family. By its mere definition, the speciation
> > process can lead to wars and other social unrest among Nations. That
> > we be able to manage this divergent differences peacefully is one of
> > the most challenging aspects of the future of Man...
> Yes, yes - but, again, there are more pressing matters, gene therapy,
> cloning etc. Would these be cases of speciation?
That will be the matter of another posting...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Sep 16, 9:08 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 16 Sep 2004 21:08:35 -0700
Local: Thurs, Sep 16 2004 9:08 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
jos...@humanisation.org (Joseph H) wrote in message ...
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> > basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
> > change is so slow that for practical purposes is irrelevant. And yet
> > the basic requirements for the speciation process in Man are already
> > given.
> Ciao, Fabrizio. Question: if the speciation process is so slow why are
> we discussing it? Are there not more urgent matters?
Just an addendum to the previous answer`s comments as to interests,
thieves, loses, etc. Looks like an old associate-employee of mine (the
name is mentioned elsewhere), has been tryinf or tried or maybe even
succeeding in impersonating me as the true owner and source of my
files and most probably of the document Alive and Human. Colors may
not be enough to distinguish us, but while I am 5`6`` (1.65) he is
maybe an inch or more taller and, most important, has a round head, a
la Socrates, while I am dolicocephalic. I don`t know if eye color can
be changed without contact lenses (distinguishable), but my eyes are
blue while his are brown. There may be other impersonators taking
advantage of the commerical aspect of my work while manipulating dark
forces to take me out of the way... permanently if possible. In Mexico
is called the `madruguete` the technique to steal by arriving earlier
while you re unprepared, and since the last few years I have been
fleeing from this thieves after they entered my house, blocked my
toilet (and with cats, imagine...), messed with acquaintances,
neighbors, boss (lost my job unexpectedly), school companions, even
with the person that picked up the trash and even stole electric
current from me and tried ti murder me and persecuted me to another
state in Mexico and kept threatening and stealing and hacking and
harassing and attempting murder and manhunting me generally, it was
until I finally arrived to the United States and achieved a somewhat
stable situation that I started selling my works, only to find nobody
was buying and there were no replies and my mails were dissapearing
and there were agitators in the streets shouting the content of
personal communications and generally my life became rather miserable
until I stopped in a drop in shelter were I sleep on a pair of chairs
and have to stay the rest of the day fom 7 in the morning to after 11
in the night sending mails and trying to be productive. So I fell
victim of the madruguete and now I am trying to locate this animals to
put them under justice. So if you find this material elsewhere (the
original parts), you now who to tell. I am sure that eventually I will
find them... and have them tell to my face that they are the authors
of my work.
visit ghamac.org/miniface.jpg
Danilo J Bonsignore (changed first name to have papers match and now
avoid spam)
Reply
robert j. kolker Sep 17, 12:21 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: "robert j. kolker" - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 03:21:49 -0400
Local: Fri, Sep 17 2004 12:21 am
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
speciation. Many tensions that underlie the human family have their
> origin in this urge of animals (no offense intended) to cluster with
> the similars and repudiate the divergent.
Why apologize? We ARE animals. Just because we can talk and add does not
change anything essential
Bob Kolker
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Sep 17, 6:56 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 17 Sep 2004 18:56:15 -0700
Local: Fri, Sep 17 2004 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"robert j. kolker" wrote in message ...
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> speciation. Many tensions that underlie the human family have their
> > origin in this urge of animals (no offense intended) to cluster with
> > the similars and repudiate the divergent.
> Why apologize? We ARE animals. Just because we can talk and add does not
> change anything essential
> Bob Kolker
Believe me, many people gets REALLY offended. One acquaintance in
Mexico used to call people animals and generated such hates aginst me
in my neigbors... Then there is such song calles `Animales` I wonder
if they are related?
I guess I am very influenced by the work of Desmond Morris. It
certainly changed my way of looking at human beings...
Reply
zerge Sep 20, 12:17 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: z...@hotmail.com (zerge) - Find messages by this author
Date: 20 Sep 2004 12:17:41 -0700
Local: Mon, Sep 20 2004 12:17 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
> change is so slow that for practical purposes is irrelevant. And yet
> the basic requirements for the speciation process in Man are already
> given.
> There are, not only geographical barriers to cross breeding but also
> sociopolitical ones. In fact, each national state is in itself a
> melting pot where one of the possible futures of Man is being born.
> There are strong barriers to cross race procreation. How long before
> those barriers turn from social to biological ones? Strictly speaking,
> the Down syndrome children are *already* a different species; a
> different number of chromosomes which, if allowed to interbreed will
> eventually lead to a totally different species, unable to procreate
> with `normal` humans. Exactly what space of possibilities in the
> Reality of biological beings will they be exploring, quite literally
> only they know. To many people they are indeed special, and that
> speciality might in te future reveal in interesting ways if a
> population of them is allowed to form and develop for itself.
> Even is Reason is the defining characteristic in the human species
> doesn`t mean that it must remain so for the unforseeable future. Whole
> populations can be interbreeding to select, from a social (mores,
> prejudices) point of view, characteristics that emphatize not an
> increase in intelligence but a decrease, an involution. Nowhere says
> or is written that intelligence as we know it must remain in the
> definition of the species. Though language very probably will remain a
> basic characteristic of future humanities (too useful to ignore),
> different roles for it may develop accordingly to other biological
> characteristics and different humanities may grant it a bigger or
> lesser importance in their everyday behaviour (there are societies
> that read an write little, while others dedicate lots of resource to
> verbal and/or written communication). DNA is a language that changes
> in subtle and almost continuous way, give the enormous quatities of
> information that go in the definition of an individual.
> Unfortunately, this speciation process is such that it introduces
> tensions in the human family. By its mere definition, the speciation
> process can lead to wars and other social unrest among Nations. That
> we be able to manage this divergent differences peacefully is one of
> the most challenging aspects of the future of Man...
Human groups in the past went through entire eras isolated totally and
absolutely from each other, and no speciation occurred. Think the
Polinesian and American people who lived tens of thousands of years
isolated from Europeans. Yet when then entered into contact with
Europeans, they where still the same species and where able to
reproduce.
In this modern age migration between countries is enormous in
comparison, so the chances of speciation, in my opinion, seem pretty
slim.
The only possibility of speciation for humans is in the distant
future, if human groups colonize other planets and stay isolated from
each other for millenia. But my intuition tells me that for speciation
to occur, it requires a LOOOONG time of isolation.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Sep 30, 7:39 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Sep 2004 19:39:03 -0700
Local: Thurs, Sep 30 2004 7:39 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message news:...
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> > basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
(snip)
> Human groups in the past went through entire eras isolated totally and
> absolutely from each other, and no speciation occurred. Think the
> Polinesian and American people who lived tens of thousands of years
> isolated from Europeans. Yet when then entered into contact with
> Europeans, they where still the same species and where able to
> reproduce.
Precisely one of the main points of Alive and Human is that evolution
is stopped for all practical matters, given the survival advantages of
Reason. It means that the selection criteria of fitness of the
strongest stops working for the human species. It breaks the natural
mechanisms under which life forms were formed (what a pun), like the
importance of having numerous offspring and the necessity of arriving
first as a mechanism for distribution of resources (here the market
changes the arrive first principle to the more `reasonable` [humane
one?] of clearing the market through monetary votes).
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Sep 30, 8:01 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 30 Sep 2004 20:01:23 -0700
Local: Thurs, Sep 30 2004 8:01 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message ...
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> > basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
(snip
)
> In this modern age migration between countries is enormous in
> comparison, so the chances of speciation, in my opinion, seem pretty
> slim.
There are very effective barriers to migration: countries and
language, and they may become harder to penetrate, less porous, the
ore humans inhabit the planet.
> The only possibility of speciation for humans is in the distant
> future, if human groups colonize other planets and stay isolated from
> each other for millenia. But my intuition tells me that for speciation
> to occur, it requires a LOOOONG time of isolation.
Maybe even millenia is a short span for the speciation process to take
place, but then the species did develop races. It took less than a
million years, it seems, and countries developed physical
characteristics in a short span of time, some hundred years, though
modern transportation will change those ethnic characteristics as it
effectively puts in touch populations that were previously isolated. I
don`t know how long it takes for a species to diverge; I guess time
will vary from family to family, but nothing precludes the possibility
of change being very swift, like a recessive or hidden mutatio
spreading throughout a population confined by the barriers of a
national State. Even if speciation as such doesn`t occur, other
changes might do. Think for instance very tall and very small
populations. I am speculating, but very small women may have trouble
delivering the children of very tall people (?). In such case both
populations would act as different species if offspring tends to be
non viable. We might even speak of `virtual human species`, even
within a race, if for any reason, (historical, cultural), those
populations don`t `mix`. The criteria is leaving offspring. Infant
killing, if widespread and sanctioned by a culture may have the same
effect as impossibility to reproduce, though in our modern age such
phenomenon would be very unlikely...
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 1, 3:52 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Oct 2004 03:52:35 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 1 2004 3:52 am
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Civilization imposes barriers to inter-population breeding analogous
to the geographical and ecological barriers that generate the
divergence of species in non rational living beings. These barriers
ensure that characteristic traits get spread among a population that
distinguishes it from other populations. These physical
characteristics are object of study of ethnology, while the cultural
characteristics, extensin and complement of the physical ones, is the
object of study of anthropology.
Human created barriers have the effect of limiting procreation among
populations; these limits if perdurable will eventually lead to
biological divergences and the creation of new human species with
characteristic traits. The process may need millions of years or only
some hundreds, depending on the appearance and propagation of
mutations. If cultural barriers to procreation are such that
interbreeding is almost assured to be null, we can speak of virtual
human subspecies, not necessarily coincident with human races. In
psychological terms it is less costly to form a family with people
with similar physical characteristics and upbringing. Racism and
intolerance are expressions of the underlying biological economy of
procreating with similar individuals and further act to reinforce
biological divergences; in other words, we hate (populations) because
we don`t want to have children with them.
Each population exemplifies different aspects of the human possibility
space and add to the species diversity. These differences are valuable
per se.
The speciation process is such that for every generation biological
change seems nonexistent compared to the possibilities open by Reason.
In practical terms evolution is stop nonetheless.
Reply
zerge Oct 1, 7:19 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: z...@hotmail.com (zerge) - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Oct 2004 07:19:32 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 1 2004 7:19 am
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message ...
> > fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > > That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> > > basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
> (snip)
> > Human groups in the past went through entire eras isolated totally and
> > absolutely from each other, and no speciation occurred. Think the
> > Polinesian and American people who lived tens of thousands of years
> > isolated from Europeans. Yet when then entered into contact with
> > Europeans, they where still the same species and where able to
> > reproduce.
> Precisely one of the main points of Alive and Human is that evolution
> is stopped for all practical matters, given the survival advantages of
> Reason. It means that the selection criteria of fitness of the
> strongest stops working for the human species.
Not quite. Even with the advent of antibiotics, we are still engaged
in an evolutionary arms race against our #1 predators: germs.
Bacteria, virus and parasites kill off millions of people each year;
those who survive the disease may pass to their offspring the genes
that allow his/her immune system to battle such diseases. The germs
keep mutating and grow resistant to our medicine, so evolution
continues; it's just not obvious at the phenotypic level.
Reply
Dez Akin Oct 1, 11:23 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: deza...@usa.net (Dez Akin) - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Oct 2004 11:23:03 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 1 2004 11:23 am
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message ...
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> > basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
> > change is so slow that for practical purposes is irrelevant. And yet
> > the basic requirements for the speciation process in Man are already
> > given.
> > Unfortunately, this speciation process is such that it introduces
> > tensions in the human family. By its mere definition, the speciation
> > process can lead to wars and other social unrest among Nations. That
> > we be able to manage this divergent differences peacefully is one of
> > the most challenging aspects of the future of Man...
> Human groups in the past went through entire eras isolated totally and
> absolutely from each other, and no speciation occurred. Think the
> Polinesian and American people who lived tens of thousands of years
> isolated from Europeans. Yet when then entered into contact with
> Europeans, they where still the same species and where able to
> reproduce.
> In this modern age migration between countries is enormous in
> comparison, so the chances of speciation, in my opinion, seem pretty
> slim.
> The only possibility of speciation for humans is in the distant
> future, if human groups colonize other planets and stay isolated from
> each other for millenia. But my intuition tells me that for speciation
> to occur, it requires a LOOOONG time of isolation.
Indeed waxing ad nausium about the future of human evolution is a
little ridiculous, given that almost any change in the human genome
going forward will be engineered rather than evolved; if we even cling
to biological forms long enough for the argument to be meaningful,
which I doubt. The age of meat puppets is drawing to a close.
Reply
robert j. kolker Oct 1, 4:29 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: "robert j. kolker" - Find messages by this author
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:29:48 -0400
Local: Fri, Oct 1 2004 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> Precisely one of the main points of Alive and Human is that evolution
> is stopped for all practical matters, given the survival advantages of
> Reason. It means that the selection criteria of fitness of the
> strongest stops working for the human species. It breaks the natural
> mechanisms under which life forms were formed (what a pun), like the
> importance of having numerous offspring and the necessity of arriving
> first as a mechanism for distribution of resources (here the market
> changes the arrive first principle to the more `reasonable` [humane
> one?] of clearing the market through monetary votes).
You think so? What will happen when an asteroid 40 km accross hits the
earth. Reason will not suffice. If that happens we are kaput.
Bob Kolker
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 1, 8:24 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 1 Oct 2004 20:24:51 -0700
Local: Fri, Oct 1 2004 8:24 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
deza...@usa.net (Dez Akin) wrote in message news:...
> z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message ...
> > fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > > That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> > > basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
> > > change is so slow that for practical purposes is irrelevant. And yet
> > > the basic requirements for the speciation process in Man are already
> > > given.
> > > Unfortunately, this speciation process is such that it introduces
> > > tensions in the human family. By its mere definition, the speciation
> > > process can lead to wars and other social unrest among Nations. That
> > > we be able to manage this divergent differences peacefully is one of
> > > the most challenging aspects of the future of Man...
> > Human groups in the past went through entire eras isolated totally and
> > absolutely from each other, and no speciation occurred. Think the
> > Polinesian and American people who lived tens of thousands of years
> > isolated from Europeans. Yet when then entered into contact with
> > Europeans, they where still the same species and where able to
> > reproduce.
> > In this modern age migration between countries is enormous in
> > comparison, so the chances of speciation, in my opinion, seem pretty
> > slim.
> > The only possibility of speciation for humans is in the distant
> > future, if human groups colonize other planets and stay isolated from
> > each other for millenia. But my intuition tells me that for speciation
> > to occur, it requires a LOOOONG time of isolation.
> Indeed waxing ad nausium about the future of human evolution is a
> little ridiculous, given that almost any change in the human genome
> going forward will be engineered rather than evolved; if we even cling
> to biological forms long enough for the argument to be meaningful,
> which I doubt. The age of meat puppets is drawing to a close.
Precisely the theme of the next future... (8)>
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 2, 3:18 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Oct 2004 03:18:38 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 2 2004 3:18 am
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"robert j. kolker" wrote in message ...
> Fabrizio J. Bonsignore wrote:
> > Precisely one of the main points of Alive and Human is that evolution
> > is stopped for all practical matters, given the survival advantages of
> > Reason. It means that the selection criteria of fitness of the
(snip)
> You think so? What will happen when an asteroid 40 km accross hits the
> earth. Reason will not suffice. If that happens we are kaput.
> Bob Kolker
Would be very bad luck if that happens this century. But Reason would
give us the survival advantage for we would understand what is
happening. Hard, but we are already aware of the possibility and have
many ears to the sky. Question is whether governments would TELL US or
keep it a secret, in an attempt to keep control to the last minute and
avoid chaos (what for then, indeed?), or to give officials a small, or
big, advantage over the rest of us. What would you do if you have the
certainty it is going to happen?
For all I know an asteroid is already coming this way and we have to
evaquate the planet now! (8(>
I guess some of us would survive and biological characteristics would
have more importance then that they have in an organized society as a
mean of survival. For instance, fertility, resistance to cold,
strength, small size (less calories needed), endurance, etc. But then
simply evaporating most of a population doesn`t make it evolve, it
only selects some characteristics, and for an asteroid on an almost
random basis. It would be after several generations and through
isolation that speciation would occur, though again how long would it
take is an unknown. There is no central clock to speciation.
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 2, 7:03 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Oct 2004 07:03:10 -0700
Local: Sat, Oct 2 2004 7:03 am
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message news:...
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message ...
> > > fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> > > > That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> > > > basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
> (snip)
> > > Human groups in the past went through entire eras isolated totally and
> > > absolutely from each other, and no speciation occurred. Think the
> > > Polinesian and American people who lived tens of thousands of years
> > > isolated from Europeans. Yet when then entered into contact with
> > > Europeans, they where still the same species and where able to
> > > reproduce.
> > Precisely one of the main points of Alive and Human is that evolution
> > is stopped for all practical matters, given the survival advantages of
> > Reason. It means that the selection criteria of fitness of the
> > strongest stops working for the human species.
> Not quite. Even with the advent of antibiotics, we are still engaged
> in an evolutionary arms race against our #1 predators: germs.
> Bacteria, virus and parasites kill off millions of people each year;
> those who survive the disease may pass to their offspring the genes
> that allow his/her immune system to battle such diseases. The germs
> keep mutating and grow resistant to our medicine, so evolution
> continues; it's just not obvious at the phenotypic level.
But now this race has a third component, antibiotics, so the system is
already different from purely bioevolutionary ones since antibiotics
are a product of Reason. Problem with your argument is that we don`t
survive an infection because of genetic traits, but BECAUSE we use
antibiotics, so medicines DISALLOW the pure expression of genetic
resistance. And given the speed with which germs change, what actually
evolves (or should evolve) is the pharmaceutical industry. Changing
genetic traits, i. e., the exploration by populations of possible
human individuals in the possibility space for human
genotype-phenotype combinations does not mean that we are evolving,
that is, changing the basic definition of Man (two eyes, stereo
vision, s-curved spine, you name it).
Reply
Bill Thompson Oct 2, 2:59 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: "Bill Thompson" - Find messages by this author
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 21:59:36 GMT
Local: Sat, Oct 2 2004 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
news:768f7623.0410020603.47277b64@posting.google.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message
...
> > fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message
news
:<768f7623
.0409301839
.cce2761@posting.google.com>...
> > > z...@hotmail.com (zerge) wrote in message
...
> > > > fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message
news:<768f7623.0409142034
.7fe8e8b1@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that
the
> > > > > basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that
this
> > (snip)
> > > > Human groups in the past went through entire eras isolated totally
and
> > > > absolutely from each other, and no speciation occurred. Think the
> > > > Polinesian and American people who lived tens of thousands of years
> > > > isolated from Europeans. Yet when then entered into contact with
> > > > Europeans, they where still the same species and where able to
> > > > reproduce.
> > > Precisely one of the main points of Alive and Human is that evolution
> > > is stopped for all practical matters, given the survival advantages of
> > > Reason. It means that the selection criteria of fitness of the
> > > strongest stops working for the human species.
> > Not quite. Even with the advent of antibiotics, we are still engaged
> > in an evolutionary arms race against our #1 predators: germs.
> > Bacteria, virus and parasites kill off millions of people each year;
> > those who survive the disease may pass to their offspring the genes
> > that allow his/her immune system to battle such diseases. The germs
> > keep mutating and grow resistant to our medicine, so evolution
> > continues; it's just not obvious at the phenotypic level.
> But now this race has a third component, antibiotics, so the system is
> already different from purely bioevolutionary ones since antibiotics
> are a product of Reason. Problem with your argument is that we don`t
> survive an infection because of genetic traits, but BECAUSE we use
> antibiotics, so medicines DISALLOW the pure expression of genetic
> resistance. And given the speed with which germs change, what actually
> evolves (or should evolve) is the pharmaceutical industry. Changing
> genetic traits, i. e., the exploration by populations of possible
> human individuals in the possibility space for human
> genotype-phenotype combinations does not mean that we are evolving,
> that is, changing the basic definition of Man (two eyes, stereo
> vision, s-curved spine, you name it).
Let's say a killer bacteria, virus, or phage appears with which the
pharmaceutical industry is unable to deal. A few people survive. They
reproduce. Evolution in action. As of now, hairless apes tinkering with
the immune system is akin to working on a swiss watch with a crowbar.
Reply
Joseph H Oct 3, 4:18 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: jos...@humanisation.org (Joseph H) - Find messages by this author
Date: 3 Oct 2004 04:18:33 -0700
Local: Sun, Oct 3 2004 4:18 am
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
we hate (populations) because
> we don`t want to have children with them.
I'm not a scientist but I sense the reason we dislike "other"
populations - or towns, or streets, or families -is more complex than
just not wanting to have children with them. There are, I would
imagine, so many more aspects of difference, threat, fear, suspicion,
superstition etc etc.
> Each population exemplifies different aspects of the human possibility
> space and add to the species diversity. These differences are valuable
> per se.
> The speciation process is such that for every generation biological
> change seems nonexistent compared to the possibilities open by Reason.
> In practical terms evolution is stop nonetheless.
Would agree with that. Reason or belief or an idea or a conviction or
a policy.
Humanisation offers many of the above.
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
Reply
Dave Oldridge Oct 4, 1:50 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: Dave Oldridge - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:50:24 GMT
Local: Mon, Oct 4 2004 1:50 am
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in
news:768f7623.0409142034.7fe8e8b1@posting.google.com:
> That Evolution is stopped in relation to Reason doesn`t mean that the
> basic definition of the human species is not changing, only that this
> change is so slow that for practical purposes is irrelevant. And yet
> the basic requirements for the speciation process in Man are already
> given.
Genetic barriers between human sub-populations are much lower than those
that produce speciation in other animals. In fact, there is very LITTLE
chance of human speciation unless we have a huge catastrophe that
severely limits our numbers and causes communications and travel to break
down or we expand into the galaxy and set up isolated colonies around
other stars. At the moment, those are the only two scenarios that I can
think of that would actually cause humanity to bifurcate.
Alleged sociopolitical barriers to gene flow in human populations are
usually honored more in print and other media than they are in actual
fact.
Our cultural memes are just too short-lived, on average, to maintain the
40 or 50 thousand years of isolation needed to truly speciate a human
subpopulation.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Reply
robert j. kolker Oct 4, 6:49 am show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: "robert j. kolker" - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 09:49:15 -0400
Local: Mon, Oct 4 2004 6:49 am
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Dave Oldridge wrote:
> Alleged sociopolitical barriers to gene flow in human populations are
> usually honored more in print and other media than they are in actual
> fact.
> Our cultural memes are just too short-lived, on average, to maintain the
> 40 or 50 thousand years of isolation needed to truly speciate a human
> subpopulation.
In short, the human race is a litter of mutts. There are no true Breeds
left. From a political and social point of view I find that to be a Good
Thing.
There is yet another route to speciation. If we go LaMarkian and craft
our genome to fit a plan we can have subspecies of humans. Of course
there are dangers to that. Think of the Gypsy Moth and the African
Killer Bees as cases of unintended consequences. Perhaps we should leave
the job to Nature.
Bob Kolker
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 14, 2:41 pm show options
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.humanism,alt.religion,sci.skeptic,sci.econ
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 14 Oct 2004 14:41:47 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 14 2004 2:41 pm
Subject: Re: Future of Man: the Speciation Process
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
Jack Dominey wrote in message ...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> Late to the thread, sorry.
> Follow-ups set to talk.origins and sci.skeptic, where I'm reading
> this.
> In sci.skeptic, <768f7623.0409301839.cce2...@posting.google.com>,
> fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote:
> >evolution
> >is stopped for all practical matters, given the survival advantages of
> >Reason. It means that the selection criteria of fitness of the
> >strongest stops working for the human species.
> You misunderstand how evolution works.
> Homo sapien is now under somewhat more relaxed selection constraints.
> Mainly due to modern sanitation and medicine, many conditions no
> longer prevent individuals from leaving offspring. This means that
> *more* genetic variation can accumulate. In a very real sense, the
> rate of evolution has *increased*.
We are becoming more diverse than we would be under astringent
constraints, but the constraints are now of a *different* nature, not
_natural_ but social; we form our own selection environment that has
little to do with leaving numerous offspring. Think of Europe and
industrialized countries where birth rates have dropped.
But the fact is that *compared to Reason*, evolution is stopped. We
don;t need to evolve wings to fly: we invent planes after doing the
necessary sicence. In that sense evolution is syopped.
> > It breaks the natural
> >mechanisms under which life forms were formed (what a pun), like the
> >importance of having numerous offspring
> No, no, no. Any creature's evolutionary success can be measured by
> how many descendants it has in subsequent generations. Relaxed
> selection does not change this. We have increased the chance that
> children survive to adulthood, and with that, lowered the number of
> childbirths necessary to produce a given number of adult offspring.
> But from an evolutionary perspective, we only consider the ones that
> survive.
What matters evolutively speaking is to spread our genetic material,
not the number of offspring we leave. The more, he better, in a
natural environment. We no longer need to meet that requirement. WHole
family lines survive with one or two descendants per generation. But
many more people now can opt not to leave offspring. That is
*unnatural* but for Men it would be *unnatural* not to make use of
this prerrogative to choose. NOt using condoms is going back to
animalism becasue Reason can make use of them while irrational living
beings can't even consider the possibility.
Reply
I have had to post so many things here to reach people I cannot reach
otherwise that the most positive posts have sunk to the bottom of the
search. Use more than 100 results from the preferences menu to save
time and clicks. I guess I will post some kind of menu here, as this
has become my main avenue to express myself.
*Alive and Human
*Home for All
the posts in sci.econ and sci.econ.research
*Guilt of Atonement
Nerets
Futures of Man
A Criminal Society II
The Speciation Process
*A New Golden Rule
Several posts about underdevelopment theories
Game theory as a theory of development
Reinterpretation of Marxism (marxism RIP)
*World Parliament (principle of ultimate responsibility)
Theory of conspiration theory
Side effects: the drug conspiracy
*Possibility of telepathy
Schizophrenia as neurosis
A solution to the war against drugs
Theory of World Democarcy
Theory of Beliefs (mdel of browhaha)
etc.
Even a bio! Forced to...
Story of a Cursed Homework
Light at the End of the Tunnel (Escape from Veracruz)
That Animation...
As I said elsewhere, the guys who entered my apartment made a mess of
my life in their rush to arrive first... and sent all manner of forces
against me. Particularly the vested interests against the
decriminalization of drugs, which is most disgusting as it seems
everything is gyrating around that theme... as my experience in that
damn drop in shelter has proven...
Look for my posts by searching on my name. I hope you enjoy and find
something to make you think and maybe help me make sense of the rumors
and find which are true and which are just a very subtle and dirty way
to mind torture by this people.
Danilo Jose Bonsignore
ghamac.org/miniface.jpg <- beginning of the year 2004, now I look tired...
ghamac.org/documenti/rondop.mid9
ghamac.org/guitar/isabelsdeath.mp3
Visit ghamac.org
Reply
Uncle Al Nov 10, 8:30 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.econ,sci.physics
From: Uncle Al - Find messages by this author
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:30:11 -0800
Local: Wed, Nov 10 2004 8:30 am
Subject: Re: My best threads are in the bottom
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote:
[snip crap]
The Golden Rule as it is is incomplete: it says how to deal with
others but not what to with ourselves. A more complete rule, that
exhibits the properties of an algorythmic ethic, that is, an ethic
that can be applied t all aspect of life by recursive application of
it, would be as follows:
do unto others what you would like to be done unto you (you know what
people likes and wants);
don`t do unto others what you don`t like to be done unto yourself (you
know what you and people usually dislike);
do unto yourself what you want, but knowing if it is hurting you or
benefitting you, and assume the consequences.
It sounds more complex; it is a logical expansion of the original rule
plus the rule to cover the case of ethic behaviour toward ourselves.
It may be further refined...
> Cool. I like where you're headed here. Could be spiffed up a little,
> as your last statement is a tad cumbersome; but I think it's pretty
> sound. Bottom line: do Right to others, do Right to yourself; expect
> others to do the same.
> Padraic.
> la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
> ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
It is actually a logical expansion of the root statement. we can add:
*don`t let others do unto you what you wouldn`t do unto others
*don`t let others do unto others what you wouldn`t do unto others
etc.
It may really be necessary to complete the expansion so that everybody
understands the implications.
As for the last statement, if we perform an expansion we fall into a
moral, a case by case enunciation of dos and don`ts, limiting the
scope of the statement. Morals are historic and change, Ethics is
permanent and provides a guide to cope with situations in life. Morals
are imposed from the outside and go against an individualistic
society; Ethic is born within and is an expression of the most
essential aspect of being a (human) person.
Trying to teach Ethics and the forces of evil deleted my previous
posting before it could appear... So they can say my life and ideas
are theirs. You wouldn`t believe, they even put the Army against me...
But then somebody in the Army, Arlington, hacked my computer last
year; I gave the IP to the FBI.
Actually it is an expansion of the logical implications of the Golden
Rule, but to many people it is necessary to make them explicit.
don`t let others do unto you what you wouldn`t do unto others,
don`t let others do unto others what you wouldn`t do unto others,
etc.
This doesn`t work for the rule that applies to one`s self. It it were
expanded we would fall into a moral, an enumeration of rules, instead
of defining an Ethic, a guide to follow in life. Morals are historic,
they change continuously, define cultures and can coexist and struggle
among themselves. They embody hierarchies of values and are expressed
as preferences in the markets and everyday`s life. Ethics is common to
all people and provides a permanent guide to conduct to advance from
the mere status of human animal to the stage of person. It must be
embodied in a general rule that can be applied to all situations, that
is, a general algorythm that solves a multitude of problems and allows
to deicide in any situations.
Ghandi`s strategy of passive or not violent resistance is directly
derived from this rule as a simultaneous application of two of its
expansions:
1) don`t let others do unto you what you wouldn`t do unto others
By letting others harm you, you are letting others violate the general
rule of not doing unto others what you wouldn`t like to be done unto
you. Notice this goes against the Christian axiom of being so meek
that you actually encourage others to keep harming you once they start
harming you. If you give that message then you are allowing others to
break your own rule and implicitly you are making the rule worthless.
2) don`t do unto others what you wouldn`t do unto others
But by not letting others harm you, you should not yourself engage in
harmful behaviour, for you would again violate the rule. The net
result is passive resistance, no violence, but simply resisting.
[This has to be modified to allow for people who actually *like* to be
harmed (masochists), which according to the necessary diversity of
Living Beings will always be among us. Whether this is a deviation
from normality and can be actually `cured`, is a matter to be
discussed by psychiatrists in individual cases.]
These ideas can of course be further discussed and expanded. And BTW,
all postings under `Fabrizio J Bonsignore` are the work of a single
individual:
Danilo J Bonsignore
Reply
naked_ape Oct 7, 12:25 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.messianic,alt.religion,la.general,ny.general
From: "naked_ape" - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 19:25:06 GMT
Local: Thurs, Oct 7 2004 12:25 pm
Subject: Re: A New Goden Rule
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
The neo-pagans have a saying, "Do as you will, but harm none." I'd say that
covers everything. .. Ape;)
"Fabrizio J. Bonsignore" wrote in message
news:768f7623.0410070546.8f1833c@posting.google.com...
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> The Golden Rule as it is is incomplete: it says how to deal with
> others but not what to with ourselves. A more complete rule, that
> exhibits the properties of an algorythmic ethic, that is, an ethic
> that can be applied t all aspect of life by recursive application of
> it, would be as follows:
> do unto others what you would like to be done unto you (you know what
> people likes and wants);
> don`t do unto others what you don`t like to be done unto yourself (you
> know what you and people usually dislike);
> do unto yourself what you want, but knowing if it is hurting you or
> benefitting you, and assume the consequences.
> It sounds more complex; it is a logical expansion of the original rule
> plus the rule to cover the case of ethic behaviour toward ourselves.
> It may be further refined...
>> Cool. I like where you're headed here. Could be spiffed up a little,
>> as your last statement is a tad cumbersome; but I think it's pretty
>> sound. Bottom line: do Right to others, do Right to yourself; expect
>> others to do the same.
>> Padraic.
>> la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
>> ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.
> It is actually a logical expansion of the root statement. we can add:
> *don`t let others do unto you what you wouldn`t do unto others
> *don`t let others do unto others what you wouldn`t do unto others
> etc.
> It may really be necessary to complete the expansion so that everybody
> understands the implications.
> As for the last statement, if we perform an expansion we fall into a
> moral, a case by case enunciation of dos and don`ts, limiting the
> scope of the statement. Morals are historic and change, Ethics is
> permanent and provides a guide to cope with situations in life. Morals
> are imposed from the outside and go against an individualistic
> society; Ethic is born within and is an expression of the most
> essential aspect of being a (human) person.
> Trying to teach Ethics and the forces of evil deleted my previous
> posting before it could appear... So they can say my life and ideas
> are theirs. You wouldn`t believe, they even put the Army against me...
> But then somebody in the Army, Arlington, hacked my computer last
> year; I gave the IP to the FBI.
> Actually it is an expansion of the logical implications of the Golden
> Rule, but to many people it is necessary to make them explicit.
> don`t let others do unto you what you wouldn`t do unto others,
> don`t let others do unto others what you wouldn`t do unto others,
> etc.
> This doesn`t work for the rule that applies to one`s self. It it were
> expanded we would fall into a moral, an enumeration of rules, instead
> of defining an Ethic, a guide to follow in life. Morals are historic,
> they change continuously, define cultures and can coexist and struggle
> among themselves. They embody hierarchies of values and are expressed
> as preferences in the markets and everyday`s life. Ethics is common to
> all people and provides a permanent guide to conduct to advance from
> the mere status of human animal to the stage of person. It must be
> embodied in a general rule that can be applied to all situations, that
> is, a general algorythm that solves a multitude of problems and allows
> to deicide in any situations.
> Ghandi`s strategy of passive or not violent resistance is directly
> derived from this rule as a simultaneous application of two of its
> expansions:
> 1) don`t let others do unto you what you wouldn`t do unto others
> By letting others harm you, you are letting others violate the general
> rule of not doing unto others what you wouldn`t like to be done unto
> you. Notice this goes against the Christian axiom of being so meek
> that you actually encourage others to keep harming you once they start
> harming you. If you give that message then you are allowing others to
> break your own rule and implicitly you are making the rule worthless.
> 2) don`t do unto others what you wouldn`t do unto others
> But by not letting others harm you, you should not yourself engage in
> harmful behaviour, for you would again violate the rule. The net
> result is passive resistance, no violence, but simply resisting.
> [This has to be modified to allow for people who actually *like* to be
> harmed (masochists), which according to the necessary diversity of
> Living Beings will always be among us. Whether this is a deviation
> from normality and can be actually `cured`, is a matter to be
> discussed by psychiatrists in individual cases.]
> These ideas can of course be further discussed and expanded. And BTW,
> all postings under `Fabrizio J Bonsignore` are the work of a single
> individual:
> Danilo J Bonsignore
Reply
Fabrizio J. Bonsignore Oct 10, 6:32 pm show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.messianic,alt.religion,la.general,ny.general
From: fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) - Find messages by this author
Date: 10 Oct 2004 18:32:28 -0700
Local: Sun, Oct 10 2004 6:32 pm
Subject: Re: A New Goden Rule
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
"naked_ape" wrote in message ...
> The neo-pagans have a saying, "Do as you will, but harm none." I'd say that
> covers everything. .. Ape;)
Excellent!
Reply
zerge Oct 12, 8:26 am show options
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.messianic,alt.religion,la.general,ny.general
From: z...@hotmail.com (zerge) - Find messages by this author
Date: 12 Oct 2004 08:26:55 -0700
Local: Tues, Oct 12 2004 8:26 am
Subject: Re: A New Goden Rule
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse
fbonsign...@beethoven.com (Fabrizio J. Bonsignore) wrote in message ...
> "naked_ape" wrote in message ...
> > The neo-pagans have a saying, "Do as you will, but harm none." I'd say that
> > covers everything. .. Ape;)
> Excellent!
Meow.
Reply