What does it matter if the net is alive? Blue green algae is alive, but it doesn't get much press. The internet is a hot topic, but applying biological principles to human constructs is hardly new. Look at bionomics (I think that was the name) the theory that the market is a living entity.
Now if it was conscious, that would be another matter entirely. "Ego cogito, ergo sum", as Descartes put it. I don't of course think the 'Net is going to gain any "real" semblance of a consciousness anytime soon, but if it did, the ramifications would be enormous. The mind, as they say, boggles. But this is all hypothetical.
So the net exhibits signs of biological life. Big deal. Call me when it starts comprehending of itself in relation to others.
What you say is true, but given that he is as you say a semi-public figure, as opposed to a wholly public figure like a popular actor or the President, there's unlikely to be much general interest in what he's saying. And the Meeja, especially tabloids, are interested in shifting papers, so frankly I don't think Rutt has too much to worry about. Unless he starts does something like come out as a full fledge Klan member or admits to criminal practices, in which case the public does indeed have a right to know.
Look at it this way: So much crap is spouted on the Internet each day that unless someone specifically sets out to bring down Rutt, they're unlikely to find anything incriminating. If they do set out to bring him down, they're liable to find what they need Internet or no.
Before I comment on the story, a brief comment on the comments themselves.
To put it simply, I'm seeing a lot of ad hominem attacks on Singer himself, such as that he is "dangerously mad" (Shouldn't he then be up a clock tower in Texas with a rifle?), whilst another decries the fact that an American professor is allowed to say this (fact: He is Australian as it said in the article, working at an American university). Such arguments embarass only their authors. Furthermore, I see him compared to the Nazis and their eugenics campaign, but I fail to see anyone pointing out that American and Swedish governments both had their own post-1945 eugenics programmes, which shows it isn't just racial supremecists who indulge in such things.
Anyway, on to my comment on the article: I would suggest we read the book. The man Singer is a philosopher (Indeed, I have a fine book by him on Ethics), and we can hardly expect to see all the caveats, ifs, ands and buts that are no doubt integral to his arguments in this less than single page article.
I will now no doubt be tarred as a baby eating madman.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if it was conscious, that would be another matter entirely. "Ego cogito, ergo sum", as Descartes put it. I don't of course think the 'Net is going to gain any "real" semblance of a consciousness anytime soon, but if it did, the ramifications would be enormous. The mind, as they say, boggles. But this is all hypothetical.
So the net exhibits signs of biological life. Big deal. Call me when it starts comprehending of itself in relation to others.
Was this at Glasgow University?
I just wonder if this is the same Big Brother.
say a semi-public figure, as opposed to a wholly
public figure like a popular actor or the President, there's unlikely to be much general interest in what he's saying. And the Meeja, especially tabloids, are interested in shifting papers, so frankly I don't think Rutt has too much to worry about. Unless he starts does something like come out as a full fledge Klan member or admits to criminal practices, in which case the public does indeed have a right to know.
Look at it this way: So much crap is spouted on the Internet each day that unless someone specifically sets out to bring down Rutt, they're unlikely to find anything incriminating. If they do set out to bring him down, they're liable to find what they need Internet or no.
on the comments themselves.
To put it simply, I'm seeing a lot of ad hominem attacks on Singer himself, such as that he is "dangerously mad" (Shouldn't he then be up a clock tower in Texas with a rifle?), whilst another decries the fact that an American professor is allowed to say this (fact: He is Australian as it said in the article, working at an American university). Such arguments embarass only their authors. Furthermore, I see him compared to the Nazis and their eugenics campaign, but I fail to see anyone pointing out that American and Swedish governments both had their own post-1945 eugenics programmes, which shows it isn't just racial supremecists who indulge in such things.
Anyway, on to my comment on the article: I would suggest we read the book. The man Singer is a philosopher (Indeed, I have a fine book by him on Ethics), and we can hardly expect to see all the caveats, ifs, ands and buts that are no doubt integral to his arguments in this less than single page article.
I will now no doubt be tarred as a baby eating madman.