[Ian] (No problem with the statistical view of species, though I didn't know we were limiting ourselves to biology ?)
[Krimel] Why not leave it there for a while. At least in biology the principle are clear and many examples are available. [Ian] But, not "just" a new state of equilibrium. If a species of Swans dies out, they can leave a lot of static latches behind - the DNA they shared with other swans they evolved from, and who knows, a genetic legacy in a species evolved from them (depending when they die out) - a "dent" in the ecosphere they inhabited, and a "dent" in the imagination of humans and other higher intelligences. [Krimel] That would certainly be E.O Wilson's view and I have a long standing respect for Wilson. Rorty tried to paint Consilience" as scientistic propaganda in a radio debate with Dennett. Dennett took him to task for that one. [Ian] That said, in the long run all stabilities could be temporary - I used the idea of meta-stable equilibria before in these discussions. The stabilities are relative. [Krimel] Stasis seems to have a lot to do with your time scale, I agree. There were lots of examples of this in "Koyaanisqatsi- Life out of Balance" as I recall. [Ian] Things like the physical, the biological (life) and the conscious (socio-intellectual) are more stable than "species" within the biological ... hence my original caveat as to why we were talking biological species only. [Krimel] I can see pretty solid ground to talk about various principle of evolution in the physical and biological realms but when you move into the conscious and social realms things get real shaky, real fast. The next thing you know some body brings up the flat tax. Ooops. 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/
