[Ian] Of course the word for "betterness" as the principle driving evolution is usually "Fitness" .... or quality, or value, ...
Much misundersood word "fitness", which is why alternatives are useful. [Krimel] The problem is that fitness or betterness can really only be determined after the fact. To then claim they are the driving force is naïve. [Arlo] The question is, if it is "better" to evolve into homo sapiens than swamp scum, why doesn't swamp scum evolve into homo sapiens? Or, if swamp scum doesn't evolve into homo sapiens, does this make it immoral? Existentially (or otherwise) inferior? "Betterness" is highly and unavoidably contextual. And it is often used to justify an existential superiority that draws from the arrogant presumption that "man" is above and apart from the world around us. That said, "betterness" is Quality. But it is "better" to say that "some patterns evolved into homo sapiens because it was better for them to do so", a usage that maintains the contextual and ecological specificity of the term, than to make mostly meaningless comments like "being homo sapiens is better than X". In other words, when "better" is used to illuminate Quality relationships in an ecological context, it is a Good term. When "better" is used to develop acontextual hierarchies of superiority, it is a poor term. [Krimel] As I have said many times I do not think Quality necessarily mean better. There are low Quality events. But you are right context is all important. [Arlo] I am listening to the Ramones right now because it is "better" for me to do so, but that does not mean listening to the Ramones is better for all people and all times. [Krimel] As you well know discussing evolution with Platt is likely to make you want to scream out "I wanna be sedated!" Gabba gabba hey! moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
