>Glove:
>
>I have been pondering your question and I am unsure that any social
>evolution, as we know it, would take place in a biologically "stable"
>population. It too would have to be "programmed", would it not? (is that
>what you mean by "pyscho-social evolution"?) What drives social evolution?
>Its the biological diversity. If that is eliminated by genetically altering
>Dynamic Quality "into", in essence locking it out of, the biological level,
>there will be nothing to drive the social or intellect levels either. That
>culture would end up in a Brave New World type scenario, don't you think?
>
Pete:
This is a really interesting question. Educationalists would probably
argue that the passing on of accumulated knowledge from one generation
to the next might be at least equally important. That started way back
when the only means was the 'oral tradition' of myth and legend,
accelerated when monks and others started to write it down and took a
quantum leap forward with the invention of the printing press. Now we
have the digital computer and the Internet ! The important factor,
however, is that this knowledge is re-interpreted and added to (except
in periods of *stasis* like the 'dark ages ). Sooner or later new
patterns of thinking are needed to cope with novel concepts and these
bring about changes in idea-systems.
So imagine an individual being able to teach their own clone. Would this
tend to promote new ideas and moral mutation or reinforce value rigidity
and eliminate the chance of radical new attitudes ? The more I think
about it the more I agree that dynamism at the biological level is
essential.
>I am struggling with this notion of life. I just read where a team of
>scientists have been given the go ahead to construct a living bacteria. My
>question: where does the "life" come from? Do they just put all the parts
>together and the bacteria starts living? Do they need to act like Dr.
>Frankenstein and shock the bacteria to life? I really need to read up on
>this more, but if anyone has any answers I would love to read them.
>From the little I have picked up ( good old BBC again ! ) it seems more
a case of knocking out more and more genes from an already extremely
primitive cross between a bacterium and a fungus (only a few hundred
genes ) and seeing if the cut-down version can survive.
The cloning techniques do seem to require an electric shock to start
cell division. Reminds me of the theory that the primordial soup of
chemicals gave rise to the first long chain carbon based molecule
capable of replication as a result of a lightning strike ( and so
raising patterns of value from an inorganic to a biological state ).
Regards
Pete
--+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Pete Fisher at Home: Peter@psfisher.demon.co.uk | | "Do not adjust your mind - there is a fault in the reality" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mailing List Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
Unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in the body of the email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:50 BST