On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, in `RE: Liberal Capitalist Fundamentalism', Dan
Minette wrote
... there were two paradigm shifts...which implies three paradigms.
Were there three major paradigm shifts? I go further back than Dan.
Over the course of human history, were there three paradigm shifts
implying four paradigms? The shifts would be
1. from foraging and hunting to agriculture and herding,
2. from agriculture and herding to mechanics and electric power,
3. from mechanics and electric power to biological and computational
activities.
In the change from foraging and hunting to agriculture and herding,
people had to learn that
- plants grow slowly and when you don't gather, you need to
cultivate plants for months,
- domesticated animals are different from hunted animals.
Put another way, you need to learn the importance of caring over the
long term, of plants, animals, children, and adults ...
Did the ancient religions focus more on caring and love than those
before? Many of you, espcially Dan Minette, Nick Arnett, and Dave
Land, will know.
In the relevant manner, how do domesticated animals differ from hunted
animals? (I know they differ; the question is how?) Deborah Harrell,
can you comment?
Also, Dan Minette, does Aristotelian physics fit a pre-industrial,
agricultural society especially well? (I think so.)
Incidentally, hot air balloons required no more than ancient Egyptian
or ancient Chinese technology. They wove cloth light enough and tight
enough to bag a vast volume of air when treated with the right sap.
Ancient leaders, Pharoahs and Emperors had the riches and the military
to fund balloons: they would have been useful in war, especially to a
besieged city or to an warrior general. Balloons would not just
vanish. Even if their builders thought them lifted by fire-generated
smoke rather than by hot air, balloons would have flown. But they
weren't invented for another four thousand years.
But for balloons to be invented, humans needed a paradigm shift, a
cultural or social shift, not just a technological shift.
In the change from agriculture and herding to mechanics and electric
power, people had to learn that
- non-living machines that move too quickly for human sight can be
understood when slowed,
- invisible electric currents flow in certain solids, unlike water
in hollow pipes,
and more. I have heard it said that the US acculturated to
mechanics and electric power sooner than others, which is why the US
was able to become so rich in the first two-thirds of the 20th
century.
Now, I have questions:
- in a mechanical and electrical era, is traditional caring less
important than in an agriculture and herding era?
- And, if so, is this why certain `liberal religions' have fewer
followers?
- As they ended up, are Marxism, libertarianism, and the like false,
19th century, attempts at creating new religions?
Incidently, in a mechanical and electrical era, caring must expand to
the environment, if only because in such an era, more happens.
In an agriculture and herding era, it hardly mattered what got dumped
into a river three hours' row upstream of you; the material would be
diluted by the time it reached you. But in a mechanical and
electrical era, a three hours' row could take a great deal less time
in a different vehicle. The stuff dumped might be too much or too
persistent to dilute sufficiently.
Since untrammeled accounting does not measure `externalities',
conservatives must favor government regulation of one sort or another.
(Banning if you expect corruption; this is traditional `regulation';
pricing if you expect honesty; this is `market regulation'.)
Conservatives have no choice. Only short-term hucksters are against
this kind of government action.
Another question for Dan Minette, does Newtonian physics fit a
mechanical and electrical era exceptionally well?
It looks to me that the notion of probability provided for a
transition to a yet newer paradigm:
- In 19th century, Darwin noted that the individuals of a biological
species were different from one another -- something others had
noted for millennia, but not considered -- and applied probability
to living populations, thereby discovering the Laws of Evolution.
- In that same 19th century, once atoms became an acceptable idea,
all atoms of the same mass and species were perceived as identical
except for position and velocity. Probabilities were applied to
those parts that differed, which led to the discovery of
thermodynamics.
The newest paradigm shift is from mechanics and electric power to
biological and computational activities.
Biology requires probabilities applied to varigated living
populations; physics requires probabilities applied to everything.
Are extreme environmental organizations and Nader's groups the false
religions of this era? (In this model, anti-environmental,
anti-climate-change groups hark back to a pre-industrial era in which
group members expect to be feudal aristrocrats and the others their
serfs.)
Is it fair to speak of the newest paradigm as involving computational
activities? Or is it more accurate to say that the current shift
involves prbabilities, i.e., non-binary logic? That biology and
physics are the big benficiaries, and that computational activities
are simply an outcome?
--
Robert J. Chassell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
