> The past provides the data from which scenarios of probable futures are
> created. Science is the best process we have to calculate those
> probabilities. I posted a long bibliography of hierarchies in ecology. You
> are a scientist/technologist if I recall. An idealized social structure
> that has never existed in the natural world doesn't fit the scenario
> building criteria; it is speculative, creative writing.
>
I cannot see the relevance, we are a qualitatively different
species even from our nearest biological relatives.
Our level of consciousness gives us the capacity to
make our hierarchies different. We were able to grow wings and
live in space (and yes, blow each other up) etc.
without biological prediction of such feats.
Biological sience is not the discipline that should calculate
social probabilities. Social evolution is not like biological
evolution, even if we happen to be biological beings (at the moment).
The sum of the individuals can turn into something different,
quantitative change into qualitative change - that is a universal
character of matter. Human society is such a biologically not
describable entity.
For an ET from a
distance our cities would look like an ant or termite-
nest, but that doesn't mean that the hierarchy has to be the same,
especially if it doesn't satisfy the majority of the people.
We are not born to be "workers", "queen" etc,
our intelligence and a decent upbringing
can make all of us fit to all social roles,
even if we happen to be all individually very different indeed.
> > and we have the capacity
> > to change our social structures inside of a few hundred years
> > rather then waiting for biological evolution taking it's
> > course through thousands of years.
>
> Whatever life forms do - by definition - is part of biological evolution.
> BTW, some scenarios give us less than 100 years to a significant population
> crash. Better speed up!
>
social evolution is not part of biological evolution.
Biological evolution is an unconscious process,
social evolution can and at a given point
of it should become a conscious one.
If we don't want to crash like the biological ones.
> > Just because chimps live in a particular way, doesn't mean
> > same is best for humans.
>
> "Best" is a subjective judgement based on selected value criteria. Then
> free will and effective implementation have to be assumed, neither of which
> are unchallenged by social scientists, psychologists & philosophers.
>
"Best" is obviously the one that allows to survive the biggest number
of the species in your biological sence, and the important addition
of the human sense of providing all the surviving individuals as much
physical and intellectual/emotional satisfaction as possible.
Fairly objective criteria in my opinion...
I agree, there is no such thing as free will, but there is a definite
progress towards it, and when the economical and physiological
constraints are minimised we will be a good way towards it.
Capitalism is not able to provide the environment for it as it
restricts most of mankind with the economical thus social restraint.
> > After all - taking your argument -
> > our "unnatural" ways made us the more successful species
> > in your preferred biological sense.
>
> Well, you lost me here, Eva.
>
You keep telling me, that we can only exist on the
so far described biological ways. I meant to point out -
and I did further above - that we are doing biologically unpredictable
things, and in the process we became most successful mammals.
(except for rats - but I venture to declare that they are not
aware of their prosperity).
Eva
> Steve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
