From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re:  Destruction of Life?
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:02:28 GMT
Organization: Rogaland University Centre

>>>According to whose intuition?
>>>
>>Mass intuition. Things which is inherent in the human nature. Almost
>>instincts. 
>
>I think that you might have misunderstood me, but I'm not even sure.
>You said that your hypothesis is "counterintuitive".  As I tried to
>make clear in the post to which you were responding, it is *not*
>counter to my intuition, nor (I suspect) to that of a lot of other
>people.  However, I disagree with the rationale that you use to back
>up your "theory", because it seems unnecessary at best, and downright
>wrong at worst...



I need to explain my notion of counterintuition. The concept of "intuition" is
based upon the logical sequence of recognition followed by realization. Later
this will be of importance.
    A basis for any individual is selfishness. Normally any conscious action will
have root in this basis. (including collective selfishness). Because we are
selfish we do things that gain ourselves. Technically: upon the recognition of a
situation we will respond with an action which ( we believe as a result of
reasoning) improves our situation. Or more generally: The pattern of actions of 
individuals are cought in an attractor towards an idealistic state which 
subjectively is experienced as "good". A person acts counterintuitively if he
consciously responds to a situation with an action which (we believe as a result
of reasoning) worsen our situation.
   
 
Hope this is an accurate enough description of counterintuition. Note that
"intuition" in this meaning is connected to actions.

I said:
>> In general I would say that with technology follows
>>the morals on how to handle it.

Also this needs to be enhanced a bit.

Morale and ethics is nothing more than collective selfishness. Any technological
innovation is based on theoretical progress. Ex.Stoneage people wouldn't be able 
to make cars because they didn't have the theoretical background needed. But
also, technology reflects the general level of science. This means that humanity
generally is able interpretate the effect of its own technology. (This is of
course arguable, and perhaps the crucial point in the theory). And if any
developement is recognized as "bad" the intuitive action is to prevent that line
from further development. 

>Do you really think that we developed the morality to handle nuclear
>weapons at the same time that we developed them?  Do you really think
>that the million people that died in and around Hiroshima in August of
>1945 would agree with you?

The Hiroshima bomb was a mere fire cracker. There were people at the time of the
invention of the A-bomb that envisioned that "the atmosphere would burn up" as a
result. Therefore the early bombs were quite small so that this would not happen.
As one learned that the effect wasn't so bad after all one increased the power
of the bombs. Humanity was never at stake at any time during the bombing of
Hiroshima because this had been taken into account before dropping the bombs.
Another question is whether the Hiroshima bombing was such a bad thing. What
would have happened if the bomb hadn't been dropped? The war would have continued
with great losses on both sides I am sure. A bunch of people died quickly. Some
others more slowly. But it was not more than a few hundred thousand people, I
think (More people than had been accounted for died later). And it stopped the
war. Japan resigned shortly after Nagasaki blew up. 



>>The muman race is a quite new arrival on the evolutionary scene and a state of
>>equilibrium has not yet been reached. 
>
>What, pray tell, makes you think that now is somehow more special than
>any other time in terms of "equilibrium"?  Please define what sort of
>"equilibrium" you're referring to as you answer the question.  This
>sounds like your other thermodynamic gibberish to me at the moment.

Often when a new species enters a well balanced ecosystem the ecosystem turns 
unstable. Then gradually the ecosystem will balance on perhaps a new stable line
until other severe changes occur. This is what I mean with equilibrium. The
human race has not yet acted out its full potential and therefore equilibrium
cannot yet have been reached. 


>You apparently haven't picked up David Raup's _Extinction Bad Genes or
>Bad Luck?_ yet.  It's not necessary that species get extincted by the
>evolution of other species.  In fact I'd guess it's not even likely
>that this is the probable mechanism of most extinctions.
>

I did not say that the evolution of new species accounts for ALL extinctions.
Don't put words in my mouth that I have never said. What I said was that
when new species evolve they DO have great impact on the surroundings. Often with
extinction of other species as a result.

 
>>Sure, some species goes extinct because they are too specialized. 
>>But this is an external reason. 
>
>Excuse me?  If "becoming too specialized" is "an external reason",
>then what to you is an internal one?


An internal reason would be if a species developed "counterintuitive" traits. 



>Finally, the better question to ask would have been 'during the
>history of life no species has destroyed itself (so far as we know)
>[though I might quibble with the over-specialization case].  Why
>should humans be any exception?'  To that I'd answer that we have some
>very unique abilities.  So far as we know, no other animal has learned
>how to refine natural resources and combine them into machines that
>can be used to manipulate and move around the environment in the ways
>that we have and do.  No other species has created general purpose computers
>that allow them to communicate with individuals they've never actually
>encountered.  What makes you think humans aren't so special?
>

I don't agree. There is nothing that points towards some unique feature which
will make humanity able to destroy itself. To say that we have great impact on the
environment just wont do. Some billion years ago bacteria filled the atmosphere 
with oxygen. This had severe impact on the environment. Antnests are perfect
examples of how animals refine natural resources. How about photosynthesis?
If that isn't refinement then what is?  What about the astonishing communication
among whales? Before modern sea technology blurred the seas with background noise
whales were able to communicate across continents. 



>Mickey Rowe    (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)


Onar.