It would seem that feelings of guilt may spawn from wiping yourself with your favorite feed. Of course, if ever one became fed up with hearing the latest stupid news from one's roommate, a very powerful point could easily (and comfortably) be made.
Evolution and de-evoultion are relative terms. Is an evolutionary trait positive or negative in the long-term or the short-term? Does the change help us personally, as a species, as a subgroup, or as a larger system? To claim that a change for a being is negative is to view the world we live in as too static. If we're becoming more stupid, is that de-evolution or is intellect an unecessary expenditure of resources for the continuation of our species? In what way does my ability to discuss this with you help me to survive? Whatever the current situation is, biological things will adapt to be most efficient at surviving in it. De-evolution is only a valid concept if one takes a very precise viewpoint.
The time frame isn't quite right for that. Nurture, in a somewhat unintended, but true sense. Nature takes more time. The Nature vs. Nurture argument is one of generationally redundant traits, usually. I may be wrong, but I think that with creatures of our generational rates we need more time to evolve [nature] superior conceptual capacities. There wasn't enough time for it to effect breeding and so not enough time to effect evolutionary paths.
What makes this an ethical dilemna is not "finding the boundary" between humans and animals. Humans (god if it's a religious dilemna) CREATED that line. When it comes down to it, what most people seem to mean is "does it seem like it can be socialized fully?"
Funny story. The bible doesn't mention other planets. Unless by 'firmament' [genesis], every planet in existence was meant. The bible takes a very local approach to geography [not mentioning far away civilizations, like norway].
You're aware that IBM uses linux on every one of it's programmer's boxes and ships mostly linux servers, right?
Re:It's just too hard for them
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Unfortunately, the way the human brain works more or less requires that we stereotype people. It's how we sort 'the world', post-descartes. The distinction people usually leave out is the implied preceding word 'negative'.
I'd love to meet a person who doesn't expect anyone to act/exist in a certain way because of their outward appearance [be it positive, or negative]. Don't get me wrong, many people try very hard. It's an ideal, though, like the fully objective scientist.
Slashdot Mirror
It would seem that feelings of guilt may spawn from wiping yourself with your favorite feed. Of course, if ever one became fed up with hearing the latest stupid news from one's roommate, a very powerful point could easily (and comfortably) be made.
Evolution and de-evoultion are relative terms. Is an evolutionary trait positive or negative in the long-term or the short-term? Does the change help us personally, as a species, as a subgroup, or as a larger system? To claim that a change for a being is negative is to view the world we live in as too static. If we're becoming more stupid, is that de-evolution or is intellect an unecessary expenditure of resources for the continuation of our species? In what way does my ability to discuss this with you help me to survive? Whatever the current situation is, biological things will adapt to be most efficient at surviving in it. De-evolution is only a valid concept if one takes a very precise viewpoint.
The time frame isn't quite right for that. Nurture, in a somewhat unintended, but true sense. Nature takes more time. The Nature vs. Nurture argument is one of generationally redundant traits, usually. I may be wrong, but I think that with creatures of our generational rates we need more time to evolve [nature] superior conceptual capacities. There wasn't enough time for it to effect breeding and so not enough time to effect evolutionary paths.
What makes this an ethical dilemna is not "finding the boundary" between humans and animals. Humans (god if it's a religious dilemna) CREATED that line. When it comes down to it, what most people seem to mean is "does it seem like it can be socialized fully?"
all your basal ganglia are belong to us?
I don't think it would cause difficulties. As is clearly perceivable here, very little can stand in the way of Mr. Gates.
I think I speak for all of us when I say we should forget this linux stuff and go back to Windows 3.0
Funny story. The bible doesn't mention other planets. Unless by 'firmament' [genesis], every planet in existence was meant. The bible takes a very local approach to geography [not mentioning far away civilizations, like norway].
Silent client rollout just means no one gets prompted for install data when you're rolling out.
You're aware that IBM uses linux on every one of it's programmer's boxes and ships mostly linux servers, right?
Unfortunately, the way the human brain works more or less requires that we stereotype people. It's how we sort 'the world', post-descartes. The distinction people usually leave out is the implied preceding word 'negative'. I'd love to meet a person who doesn't expect anyone to act/exist in a certain way because of their outward appearance [be it positive, or negative]. Don't get me wrong, many people try very hard. It's an ideal, though, like the fully objective scientist.
Humanity? Virus? We consume too fast. We are too efficient?