Evolutionary strategies/behaviours and culture

[kyser_soze]

Fecking slow board shenanigans...DP

 

[gorski]

Even within Capitalism itself there are radically different paradigms to consider: principles of domination and exploitation can be predominant and colour everything [Social Darwinism, Bellum omnium contra omnes] or instead of "friend or foe" [Schmitt] idea we can have co-operatrive paradigm propping it all up [Social Democracy].

Giddens has a book on the topics tied to the EU, mostly, called "Europe in the global age". A number of possibilities in the Social Democratic vision...

So, Modernity has different strands, one could say: an aggressive subject, forcing everything before him/herself, as it were, as well as the intersubjective strand, as Habermas would have us believe.

I wrote a bit more on the topic here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=204924&page=2

In nature, one could argue, there are other possibilities, as Jonti's link to Love2Know encyclopedia shows, and one can pick on various ones to paint a picture as one chooses. If one sees "us" only as combatants/competitors or perhaps, at least all the higher organisms, as amalgamations between many different parts and all interacting, hence interdependent, therefore co-operating etc. - a very different picture might emerge...

So, it depends on many factors what we shall see in nature. But, as Kant-Hegel development teaches us, not much more than we put in it...

 

[kyser_soze]

Even within Capitalism itself there are radically different paradigms to consider: principles of domination and exploitation can be predominant and colour everything [Social Darwinism, Bellum omnium contra omnes] or instead of friend or foe idea we can have co-operatrive paradigm propping it all [Social Democracy].

Agreed - a good example of competitive organisations cooperating would be in standards organisations such as the ITU and GSM Consortiums.

However, you have half fallen into the trap I mentioned about placing value or moral judgements upon what is a process - 'social darwinism' has always been a misnomer built on a wilful misrepresentation of the word 'fittest', which for Darwin meant something akin to 'fit for purpose', which in the context of evolution means best able to adapt, to a more herculean use of the term, alluding to physical or moral strength.

But you're right - even withint the capitalist model there are evolutionary pressures, but my point is that they are pressures that humans create themselves.

I try to avoid the comp/coop dualism when thinking about evolution, preferring to look at whether a given action or system of behaviour(s) fulfills what I see as the primary evolutionary criteria of ability to adapt - I don't even try to look at end results in terms of good or bad. Example: take the issues over global warming; the capitalist nations are behaving in a way that disadvantages the 3rd world and will mean they suffer the worst effects. Morally this is appalling, but there is evolutionary logic in this kind of 'raise the drawbridge' approach:

1. It enables you to focus more energy and resources on dealing with Climate Change at home
2. It will severely deplete the world's population, potentially making resource acquisition easier in the future as there will be less people to consume resources and in places where there are resources and depleted populations it'll make securing those resources easier (in theory)

 

[gorski]

Maybe we should clean our notions a bit...?

Methodically speaking:

1) There is no such thing as "value free judgements" [all of science has some sort of ideological basis/consequences] at its foundations - I repeat: no such thing as "value-free, neutral science"! That's a myth!

1a) the best we can do, under the circumstance, is to go back to our context and try to realise how we are influenced by our societies, education etc. and to understand how our tools [types of thinking and notions] are historically produced and are therefore prone to change/our modification or even complete turnover from a previous paradigm... [a wee bit of humility and qualification of our "insights" is in order here, methinx... - no "timeless" and "absolute" shite, dear Darwinians, please...]

2) Strictly speaking "evolutionary pressures" in human societies and even in animal kingdom is a man made concept which is

a) unproven [we haven't seen any new species via "evolution" since the theory was published or any significant change in ourselves, to begin with!]

b) completely misses the point in a Human Societal context, where this sort of competition can not be "evolutionary", as we are hardly likely to die off en masse [which doesn't preclude mass hunger, thirst, wars, disease outbreaks etc. - and a lot of suffering, in general] or change significantly on a genetic level in, say, Africa, as human beings, if Africans are not as rich/powerful [= "successful"??? ], as Americans, for instance...

3) Moreover, you are using Darwinian terms to "explain"/describe societal processes, which is what Marx already sees as a methodological problem/fault, since Darwin himself admits he took Malthus' world-view and incorporated it, actually based his "understanding" of nature in it and "explained" everything in "nature" having in mind early Capitalist quagmire of the UK...

This is highly inappropriate and even dangerous [as I wrote earlier, re. eugenics, the Nazis etc.], as the alleged "insight" into Nature [that was formed by/based in "Social Science" - but that was conveniently forgotten (a highly embarrassing episode for Darwinians)] was then re-used to come back to Human Society to allegely "firmly ground everything in timeless, Natural Laws that Darwin and co have now understood"!

As Marx speaks of bourgeois apologists/ideologues: it's funny, he said, as now they look to have become just like the religious dogmatics they deposed, because all that happened before Capitalism was totally unjust and flawed, artificial and un-natural but the newly established [by them] society is now perfectly 'in tune' with Nature itself, so "no more changes, please"! History used to be but NO MORE!!

Interesting, don't you think? One uses a picture/model that one has in front of him, from the early Capitalist phase, shoves it into Nature and then, after Nature has been so beautifully "explained" comes back to Social Sciences to declare the new society "magically and even mystically" perfect and timeless... Bliss....

4) Humans don't just "adapt" to the environment - we alter it, even drastically and we now even have the potential/power to destroy many, if not all, species on Earth, starting with ourselves. That has nothing to do with Nature as such as she doesn't necessarily turn on itself like that, since no other species can do this... So, if that is all "evolution" - then what's wrong there?

5) There is no "evolutionary logic" in what you describe in the last paragraph, k_s. Just horror... Or maybe I misunderstood?

Please explain...

 

[kyser_soze]

OK, I have to be quick (and the damn auto sign out thing lost a long post I'd written)

we haven't seen any new species via "evolution" since the theory was published or any significant change in ourselves, to begin with!

Wrong - while there haven't been any completely new species, as recently as two months ago New Scientist published details of an observed evolutionary change in a rodent population that actually saw two separate changes happen in response to a new predator (will come back with a link laters), one which favoured limb changes for climbing, the other limb changes for running faster, so to say that evolution is 'unproven' and unobserved in both the petr dish and in nature simply isn't true.

That has nothing to do with Nature as such as she doesn't necessarily turn on itself like that

Well of course not - unless you think 'nature' is a conscious entiy, but volcanos, earthquakes, asteroid strikes and at the ultimate end something like a gamma ray burst from a supernova or exploding neutron star could possibly sterilise the planet permanently!

There is no "evolutionary logic" in what you describe in the last paragraph, k_s. Just horror...

It's supposed to be horrific - but from a selfish survival standpoint it makes absolute sense; survival of the effects of one's own actions by letting others die.

OK, not the exact story I was looking for but...http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19225834.000-review-2006-evolution-in-action.html

 

[gorski]

In reverse order:

Human survival chances are best when co-operating. Selfishness is not. This is a particular theory speaking - it is not the only option, the way you seem to understand/advocate it. And that is the point here, precisely.

"Nature does not turn on itself like this" meaning "living species", in the context of our potential destructiveness [I thought it was obvious] - you misunderstood/misinterpreted.

Can we have the link to make our minds up [regarding the new "evolutionary" change], please?

 

[Jonti]

Maybe we should clean our notions a bit...?

Methodically speaking:

1) There is no such thing as "value free judgements" [all of science has some sort of ideological basis/consequences] at its foundations - I repeat: no such thing as "value-free, neutral science"! That's a myth!

...

Is that a fact?

* makes note of datum

 

[gorski]

Yep.

 

[Crispy]

*tries very hard to bias the acceleration due to gravity*
hnnggg! grnhngguhguh!

nope

 

[Jonti]

* notes more data

 

[gorski]

Gravity? Tell it to Giordano Bruno. Then tell me what kind of context does it need in order to be [expressed] at all and which values does it adhere to? Can science as we know it be without freedom/democratic context, a world where multiple versions/various possibilities of "reality" are openly debated and explored etc.?

Now, if someone tells me there's no other option but that we are selfish and that's it, nothing else is possible/viable - I draw the line... That is NOT a fact! There are other options! Otherwise, we're having another dogma and somebody is trying to take a variety of options away from me.

So, come again: science neutral? Dream on!

 

[gorski]

For instance...

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/ethics/values.htm

ABSTRACT. Values intersect with science in three primary ways. First, there are values, particularly epistemic values, which guide scientific research itself. Second, the scientific enterprise is always embedded in some particular culture and values enter science through its individual practitioners, whether consciously or not. Finally, values emerge from science, both as a product and process, and may be redistributed more broadly in the culture or society. Also, scientific discoveries may pose new social challenges about values, though the values themselves may be conventional. Several questions help guide disciplined inquiry into ethics and values.

1. Introduction

A fundamental feature of science, as conceived by most scientists, is that it deals with facts, not values. Further, science is objective, while values are not. These benchmarks can offer great comfort to scientists, who often see themselves as working in the privileged domain of certain and permanent knowledge. Such views of science are also closely allied in the public sphere with the authority of scientists and the powerful imprimatur of evidence as "scientific". Recently, however, sociologists of science, among others, have challenged the notion of science as value-free and thereby raised questions--especially important for emerging scientists--about the authority of science and its methods.

The popular conceptions--both that science is value-free and that objectivity is best exemplified by scientific fact--are overstated and misleading. This does not oblige us, however, to abandon science or objectivity, or to embrace an uneasy relativism. First, science does express a wealth of epistemic values and inevitably incorporates cultural values in practice. But this need not be a threat: some values in science govern how we regulate the potentially biasing effect of other values in producing reliable knowledge. Indeed, a diversity of values promotes more robust knowledge where they intersect. Second, values can be equally objective when they require communal justification and must thereby be based on generally accepted principles. In what follows, I survey broadly the relation of science and values, sample important recent findings in the history, philosophy and sociology of science, and suggest generally how to address these issues (this essay is adapted from Allchin, 1998).

 

[Jonti]

This does not oblige us, however, to abandon science or objectivity, or to embrace an uneasy relativism.

 

[Jonti]

no such thing as "value-free, neutral science"!

Well, it's a practical art, this business of usefully making distinctions. So yes, that's uhh, absolutely true, if by science you mean technology. I guess to a sociologist, there's not really much of an observable difference between science and technology. How do they distinguish between the two, I wonder?

Physicists are sometimes heard to remark that mathematics is the language of the universe; and mathematicians to remark that aliens from space would recognise lots of our math, and vice versa. The integers and primes are often wheeled out in support of that position. Things are as they are, and the methods of science expose them to the gaze in a communicable form.

Maxwell's equations; Newton's laws of motion; the three laws of thermodynamics; the theory of gravity; are value-free, neutral, scientific statements. The whole point of the scientific methodolgy* is that it enables us to escape from our bubbles of delusion and wishful thinking -- in fact, it's the *only* way we have.

* evidenced rational discourse

 

[gorski]

I don't understand your "objections" at all, I'm afraid, m8...

 

[kyser_soze]

Human survival chances are best when co-operating. Selfishness is not. This is a particular theory speaking - it is not the only option, the way you seem to understand/advocate it. And that is the point here, precisely.

"Nature does not turn on itself like this" meaning "living species", in the context of our potential destructiveness [I thought it was obvious] - you misunderstood/misinterpreted.

Can we have the link to make our minds up [regarding the new "evolutionary" change], please?

Well I gave you a link which contains at least 3 examples of observed evolutionary change in nature - before you posted this reply in fact.

I didn't say that selfishness OR cooperation was the 'better' route - that's my whole point. The only time you get the concept of 'better' when applied to evolution in human terms is when you describe something as a 'horror' - I don't see why you can't understand that allowing 2/3 of the global population to die in order to preserve a highly insulated and secure living environment doesn't make sense. All that land, resources...and no one to have to fight for it...of course it's morally reprehensible, but that doesn't stop it having it's own logic.

There is evidence to suggest that species other than humans can/have destroyed their environment to the extent that at least locally survival chances are dramatically diminished (for example predator species wiping out local prey), so yes nature can 'turn on itself'. That humans are doing it 'consciously' is by the by.

Do you anthropromophise everything the way you did with nature - ascribing gender to a system that does not recognise human values or morality? Dubious thinking on your part there.

 

[gorski]

I have to say that I am pretty perplexed by this sort of an uncritical attitude, when it comes to Science... If we claim science is not dealing in absolutes, as it is us who are creating it and we are not absolute but limited, corporeal, short lived beings and even collectively we keep "changing our mind", as it were - I wonder where does the need for "absolute knowledge", "immovable grounds" from which to spring forth come from...

From there on, if Modern Science is NOT value free: why is there such a need to rid ourselves from our moral and other obligations, where does it come from?!? Every "theory" has consequences and presumptions. An ideology, if we really search for it, is in the background. It's nothing new in Philosophy but I can see quite clearly that many in the scientific world are quite "innocent" about it...

In gnoseology we - at our best - are trying to remain with an "open mind", as we can see how our "best theories" are being made invalid and superseded, one after the other, from one era to the other - but all of a sudden, in every generation, some poor sod starts claiming s/he NOW has it all figured out and from now on it's gonna be plain sailing, if we only follow him/her...

Ahem...

Well I gave you a link which contains at least 3 examples of observed evolutionary change in nature - before you posted this reply in fact.

This is a second link [I see on this forum] to the mag that has an article, full of conjecture of all sorts, with no links to the original subject and real work being done {loaded with presumptions of all sorts, none of them questioned properly, none of them tested in a critical encounter [I find that dangerous!]}, so we can't have a real go at the original study, to prevent ourselves from being "believers" and use our own judgement, as to the validity of the "mere observation" that allegedly has nothing to do with “us”...

Which brings me to the point: methodologically you seem to claim you have an "out of body experience"... Not just the "out of body" but "out of Human body" experience.

You can only observe, perceive, think, feel, judge etc. as a Human Being, an individual, with various limitations, from languages spoken, to the literature read and onwards. Your need to claim the absolute ground is almost laughable. I would suggest you study Kant and then Hegel's critique. There you will find the idea indefensible.

The subject and object are always, from the start, one and not possible to separate absolutely. One can try to do it for analytical purposes but eventually, if we are any good and honest at this, we’ll have to pay attention to our context, who we are etc. A Human is NOT God, so you cannot claim you know what something is like "naturally", "absolutely objectively", i.e. not involving a human being actively reasoning and learning, perceiving, testing, debating, experimenting, verifying, creating, externalising oneself into the Object etc. etc. - which is what you keep doing...

I didn't say that selfishness OR cooperation was the 'better' route - that's my whole point. The only time you get the concept of 'better' when applied to evolution in human terms is when you describe something as a 'horror'

Well, I say that we do know which one is better for Humans [for the reasons mentioned above]! Not sociopaths [as a potential "'natural' measure of all things"] but fully grown, mature, mutually respectful and decent, upright, Human Beings, capable and willing of recognising the Other and willing and capable of Empathy, Solidarity, Unselfish acts etc. etc.. I understand that Conservatives are trying hard to make us believe that we are "naturally" selfish and nasty, value-free, "all against all" kind of creatures and so on - but I can't see myself swallowing it wholesale without any second thought, thanx...

The perverse thing I described above: such a specific picture of Human Nature was conceived in Humanities, taken to Natural Sciences and then brought back to "only explain" but really "justify" precisely the kind of thing they want us all to believe in... I am NOT a believer, I repeat!

We also, as yet, do NOT know just how are "we" evolving exactly, so for now all that is but a theory, not a dogma! Last time I checked anyone is free to critically engage and question such presumptions... As in "value free judgements are possible"... To me that is a horror story because it rests on extremely dubious grounds of an alleged "absolute knowledge", outside of the realm of Human experiences, which began in a specific era, with a specific, early Modern Man/Subject at work, in front of an "impartial 'out-of-spece-and-time' observer" [Hobbs, Malthus etc.]... I think Science is on dangerous grounds there and it needs to re-think seriously and carefully those presumptions, i.e. how it got to its interpretative notions, its methodology and its type of thinking!

I don't see why you can't understand that allowing 2/3 of the global population to die in order to preserve a highly insulated and secure living environment doesn't make sense. All that land, resources...and no one to have to fight for it...of course it's morally reprehensible, but that doesn't stop it having it's own logic.

From "makes sense" to "natural" and onwards is a huge jump! Again, you are ascribing values to it, and again, there is no such thing as value free judgement! It is, therefore, you who is anthropomorphising nature here and in the worst possible sense of the word: a greedy, nasty, sociopathic man is the basis of this sort of a "mere observation". Such an interpretation allegedly "means no harm", just presumes that such reasoning in Human Terms is, firstly, “possible” and, then, even "OK". It ain't! And it ain't possible! "Nature red in tooth and claw", as in “no morals in nature” is just that: our momentary “understanding” of it. But we are not "just nature" and we cannot pretend we are. We have other capabilities and to try to pretend we don't is a bit... disingenuous... Not to mention highly dangerous with a gazillion potentially nasty consequences everywhere, in a world that puts Science very high up, when it comes to regulating our societies, legislating and so on...

There is evidence to suggest that species other than humans can/have destroyed their environment to the extent that at least locally survival chances are dramatically diminished (for example predator species wiping out local prey), so yes nature can 'turn on itself'. That humans are doing it 'consciously' is by the by.

Again, conjecture, no real study/data and more asking of us to "believe", but since I am not such a good boy to just take your word for it, especially when it flies in the face of what I “know” I am questioning... So, kindly provide the evidence, so we can judge it on our own terms, please... Moreover, to ascribe that sort of behaviour to an animal and then believe that it can be somehow pushed back into a discussion on Humans “just like that” - is flawed! Not without any proper mediation, for sure. The context matters here, so we better not forget it: especially if all this is in relation to my claim that no other species has the power to destroy not only itself but many other species. You have provided no evidence that such an animal exists and that it has such potential impact on its environment. Ergo, your reasoning escapes me...

Do you anthropromophise everything the way you did with nature - ascribing gender to a system that does not recognise human values or morality? Dubious thinking on your part there.

And just how did I do that? I said we cannot claim to have the absolute knowledge and that means it is limited - by definition, as we are not Gods. You are, in other words, overstepping your limitations pretty badly here, claiming you have a kind of knowledge that rests on nothing Human but is beyond it... Your Era has left no mark on you, such is the gravity of your presumptions/claims, your education, even you specie, not to mention your gender, your class, the customs and processes of socialisation into your own society, the ideologies you were exposed to and so on and on...

I think, on the other hand, I have at least hinted at how we are much more than "just nature in us", in which case there is some thinking to be done with your presumptions... We are, from the start, "involved" with the object of our study and our "observations" are marred by many problems/issues/the very nature of our perception and the very possibility of engaging with our world, by purposefully claiming it for ourselves - it certainly ain’t “passive” [for fuck’s sake, even the Stalinist “mirror theory” wasn’t THAT stupid...]!

In which case we cannot claim we have a value free judgement, an "absolute ground" from which to claim something for all times, all places, that "X is natural" and hence "unchangeable"... Our notions of the same issues keep changing... Care to think about the reason for it?

 

[kyser_soze]

Are you willfuly creating strawmen from what I'm saying? Once again, you seem to think I ascribe moral goodness to the 'drawbridge' model I've written - which I don't, but I can see that as a means of preserving life it's logical - not 'good' or 'bad' or 'natural' simply logical, a response to external and internal environmental pressures, and one of an infinitude of possible responses to the world as we live in it currently.

But I'll let you get back to a relativistic philosophy, since that's where you're clearly the happiest - that and putting words in people's mouths that simply aren't there.

 

[gorski]

Absolutely not! No strawmen and no relativism. You are now doing it, i.e. taking my critical and questioning approach to things to extreme, so you can easily dismiss it, as it's a bit much for you, to make all that effort, so you're reaching for "silver bullet", easy solutions of the "black/white" type...

The point, again, is missed by you: you cannot say you "know" an amoral position. That, for a human is not possible, for the reasons mentioned above.

Relativism is not my stance: at our best we are always striving towards the best we can do [to keep becoming the best we can become], individually and collectively. It does not mean/guarantee we will ever reach "Godly nature" [which might or might not be amoral - we just cannot know it!]. That doesn't invalidate our efforts, as it's not about reaching "it" ["winning/power is everything!"] but about travelling and trying to do our best along the way - in a nutshell...

A truly clever species has many possibilities [not just "either or"!] and can see that its best chances of survival are NOT in selfishness but in a common, rational effort, not if we simply war, plot against each other [and claim that it's "natural" and hence "justified" or even "rational"] and wifully destroy our cousins for our own "survival"... Talent which might be necessary for us to get off of this planet one day, before the Star dies, might be just there, where some might see that today "these people are standing in the way of our survival chances, so let's make it easier for them to leave this place... permanantly"... Some "survival strategy" that would be on our, allegedly, intelligent part...

That would make us into animals, sure...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

we haven't seen any new species via "evolution" since the theory was published or any significant change in ourselves, to begin with!.

Nonsense.

Elephants are losing their tusks due to poaching. Very soon, the African elephant may have completely lost its tusks as all those with tusks are killed by humans. The environment changed so that the advantages of tusks - using them to help you push over trees etc - are outweighed by the disadvantage - being shot at - so the trait dies out because those with tusks no longer live long enough to successfully reproduce.

THIS IS EVOLUTION. NO MORE, NO LESS.

I know kyser and others have already pulled you up on this, but you really are talkng ill-informed nonsense. And, dangerously, you think you know what you're talking about.

*tries to bias the evolutionary process so that elephants keep their tusks*

*fails*

 

[gorski]

What? Bollox!!! Noone answered any of those "awkward Q's" I posted as yet, so dream on... Actually, Jonti had to agree with me that there are many "unaswered" problems and difficulties in the present Scientific type/model of thinking about ourselves and how we became what we are, actually who we are, more precisely, what we are all about etc., so...?!?

On the other hand: we know everything, eh? Everything on Earth. Absolutely, eh? Like when we knew exactly that DDT is GOOD for us, eh?!? So, now we know exactly why [and even IF] elephants [on the whole] are losing their tusks, eh? As if we have seen any species with every individual at all times completely perfect, eh?

Maybe yiou should see the link [like2know encyclopedia] Jonti posted, to see just how these "observations" are not exactly "objective" and how we can learn better and more and have to change our presumptions and keep learning and changing all the time...

Right... Tea-time...

 

[gorski]

Btw...

Elephants are losing their tusks due to poaching. Very soon, the African elephant may have completely lost its tusks as all those with tusks are killed by humans. The environment changed so that the advantages of tusks - using them to help you push over trees etc - are outweighed by the disadvantage - being shot at - so the trait dies out because those with tusks no longer live long enough to successfully reproduce.

THIS IS EVOLUTION. NO MORE, NO LESS.

Btw, that, to my mind, is extermination or selective breeding, not evolution... Unless "nature" means machine guns and trucks and so forth... This is "us" not environment on its own.

What evolutionary process do we see when we exterminate cod or dodo?!?

Self-fulfilling prohecy comes to mind... Pull another one...

 

[gorski]

On truly STRATEGIC THINKING of an allegedly intelligent species...

Pugwash: anyone remembers? Here, for instance:

http://www.pugwash.org/

See the "team": http://www.pugwash.org/about/conference.htm

Or here:

http://www.pugwash.org/reports/pac/pac256/rotblat.htm

See these, for instance, when it comes to "strategic thinking" of a truly intelligent species:

...the urgent need and duty of scientists to be concerned about the social consequences of the tremendous advances in science and technology - the Scientific Revolution, as he used to call it. He believed that this revolution called for a correspondingly radical change in the attitude of Man towards social and political problems, especially towards solving disputes: it was vital to resolve conflicts by non-military means...

...since the problems created by the advances in science and technology affected the whole of mankind, a truly international endeavour was necessary to tackle them.

Science misused by nations to foster their competitive interests as world powers makes possible the destruction of mankind. Science used co-operatively by all nations for the increase of human knowledge and the improvement of man’s productive capacity can give all men on earth a satisfactory and worthwhile life. Scientists bear a responsibility both to foster the constructive use of science and to help in preventing its destructive use.

And then:

The goals adopted by the London Conference were outlined in the public statement, issued at its conclusion:

We scientists from 36 countries, assembled at the Tenth Pugwash Conference on Science and World Affairs, are united by an awareness that the scientific revolution has created a radically new situation for humanity, endowing man with an unprecedented capacity for creation and destruction....

Disarmament and a stable peace are essential conditions for making a new society in which poverty could be abolished. The prospect of such a world is no longer Utopian.
...

We reassert our conviction that the goal of full disarmament and permanent peace is realistic and urgent. This work is truly to be seen as a part of a long struggle for the progress of mankind, and it is one in which scientists have a responsible part to play. We call upon scientists everywhere in the world to join us in this task.

Moreover:

The Pugwash Movement is an expression of the awareness of the social and moral duty of scientists to help to prevent and overcome the actual and potential harmful effects of scientific and technological innovations, and to promote the use of science and technology for the purpose of peace.

Even this came to the fore:

...on the social responsibility of scientists.
...
...a campaign on the Pledge - a sort of Hippocratic Oath intended to be taken by young scientists at the start of their careers.
...
...the rapid advances in several areas of technology may lead to profound societal disturbances, which may arise from the changes in the norms of life of the human community as a result of these advances; changes in economic, cultural and spiritual values, changes that may be abhorrent to some sections of society. There is a real danger that science and scientists will be blamed for the upheavals. It will be difficult to refute such accusations, unless the scientific community wakes up to its social responsibilities.

Just another such view from a philosopher of science/physicist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Supek

Already in 1944, fourteen months before Hiroshima, he warned on the danger of the newly developed atomic bomb, which could soon destroy the entire life on Earth.

[...]

...he founded the Institute for the Philosophy of Science and Peace, as a section of the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts (since 1991 the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts) of which he was president from 1991 to 1997. The Institute was also a center of the nuclear disarmament movement, the Pugwash Conference for Yugoslavia, of which he was one of the founders and a member of its Permanent Committee. In 1970 he initiated the establishing of the Interuniversity Centre in Dubrovnik (IUC). He was also one of the founders of the international organization World without the Bomb. After numerous disputes and arguments with the government he was interrupted in his public activity in 1971.

[...]

In 1976 he signed the Dubrovnik-Philadelphia Statement, with Philip Noel-Baker, Linus Pauling and Roberto Peccei. He participated at the Philadelphia Congress of World Unity in 1976. He formulated his famous ten humanistic principles, which were more or less repeated at every later peace summit and event. He also established the International League of Humanists.

It's interesting what the "Bible Believers" think about it:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/human1.htm

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Btw, that, to my mind, is extermination or selective breeding, not evolution... Unless "nature" means machine guns and trucks and so forth... This is "us" not environment on its own.

What evolutionary process do we see when we exterminate cod or dodo?!?

Self-fulfilling prohecy comes to mind... Pull another one...

As far as the elephant is concerned, men with guns after their tusks is a change in the environment. Remember, humans are just another aspect of the environment as far as elephants are concerned - we occupy no privileged place. A new predator is on the scene and the defence against it is to lose your tusks.

There was a time when rodents the size of cars walked this planet. This was a time before big cats. When this new, dangerous predator evolved, large vulnerable rodents were all killed. The defence against big cats - to become small and nimble. So only the smallest and nimblest survived.

You make a grave mistake when you somehow except human beings from the natural world. We, and everything we do, are part of the natural world every bit as much as the nesting bird or dam-building beaver.

 

[gorski]

1) As far as the elephant is concerned, men with guns after their tusks is a change in the environment. Remember, humans are just another aspect of the environment as far as elephants are concerned - we occupy no privileged place. A new predator is on the scene and the defence against it is to lose your tusks.

2) There was a time when rodents the size of cars walked this planet. This was a time before big cats. When this new, dangerous predator evolved, large vulnerable rodents were all killed. The defence against big cats - to become small and nimble. So only the smallest and nimblest survived.

3) You make a grave mistake when you somehow except human beings from the natural world. We, and everything we do, are part of the natural world every bit as much as the nesting bird or dam-building beaver.

Wrong on all counts!

1) We do occupy the most privileged/powerful space in Nature, to the extent of potential extermination of a species or many a specie! No other specie "manages" its environment like we do.

It also seems you're ascribing an almost "conscious" action to Nature.

Plus, we are not new to elephants. We were able to kill them before, even if it was labour intensive but it was without the meaning/interests we ascribe to it today [not for hunger + before our current destructive power other prey was plentiful, we grew our own crops, domesticated animals etc.].

But the main thing is that you're mixing apples and pears: extermination/selective culling on a vast scale, due to our very own shit [wars and greed beyond hunger etc.], do not appear in Nature – even you have to acknowledge it’s deffo not on such a scale!

So, yeah, we're damn "special", as we are so powerful and we do not do things purposefully in line with our survival/minimal needs, so as to be in an equilibrium with it -as we kill not for physical but for greedy hunger of the soul or power games and idiocy type [see the North American Bison shite, for instance]. We can turn really nasty against Nature itself and against our very own, best understood interests, with all the power we’ve got!

2) Ach, again, the evolution is 100% determinism, with no way of anything except what we think now, looking retrospectively, is possible and no chance for chance... Like more powerful rodents evolving, their own predators feeding on cats, too and so forth... Echhhh...

3) Tell it to Mankind in case a nuclear plant [or three] goes into a meltdown, starts drilling and reaches Earth's core, or if we unleash the Nuclear Dragon out of its Den and thousands of Poisonous Mushrooms start growing in no time at all, around the Globe... Or maybe an engineered virus or some other type of a genetic modification [because someone thinks s/he can, so why not - without thinking thrice hundred times beforehand...] or a chemical doomsday weapon or Tesla's magnetic resonance earthquake thingy [whatever its name is] or anything else this unremarkable species can come up with...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

1)
Misunderstanding - i'm not ascribing any conscious direction to evolution - very precisely, those elephants with the gene/gene combination for growing tusks are less likely to reproduce than those without it, so tusked elephants are dying out. This change is taking place in response to a change in the environment - humans wishing to kill tusked elephants - and the total disappearance of tusks, were it not for measures such as nature reserves to stop it, would have happened within a handful of generations, showing how quickly a species can change when its environment changes. This is, very precisely, the process of evolution.

Regarding 'managing' the environment, beavers do this by building dams. Termites build fungus farms in their mounds. We are not the only animals to do this. The arrival of cats in many environments led to the total extermination of many species as catastrophic and swift as the killing of the bison. You missed my point that the reason humans were killing the bison - mostly as a means to starve the Plains Indians - is really of no consequence whatsoever to the bison itself.

Humans, no matter how much they may like to think they can, cannot place themselves outside the logic of evolution or the laws of physics that govern life. We are part of 'nature', not separate from it.

2) This point is too garbled to respond to.

3) I refer you to point 1. I did not say anywhere that modern humans do not occupy a space never before occupied. Humans are indeed a remarkable species, quite possibly fatally so.

 

[gorski]

Oh, Gawd...

1) Misunderstanding - i'm not ascribing any conscious direction to evolution - very precisely, those elephants with the gene/gene combination for growing tusks are less likely to reproduce than those without it, so tusked elephants are dying out.

Nope, they are being exterminated for reasons outside of "Natural World" - human notions of greed, power etc. Nothing of the sort exists in "pure nature. Again, conveniently missing the point... Moreover, the gene to grow tusks might still be there, if not dominant - and come back, as it were. You do not know that for sure/absolutely but you are presuming you do.

This change is taking place in response to a change in the environment - humans wishing to kill tusked elephants - and the total disappearance of tusks, were it not for measures such as nature reserves to stop it, would have happened within a handful of generations, showing how quickly a species can change when its environment changes. This is, very precisely, the process of evolution.

Yeah, "wish", not "need". See above.

It did not change - we changed it. Culling for purpose. Our purpose. Nowt to do with Nature. Nothing of the sort in Nature. Not on that scale! [This is just in case you find something seriously dubious to compare it with...]

As for the bold stuff [I did it] - what on Earth is that? More consciousness ascribed to Nature, Vicar?

Regarding 'managing' the environment, beavers do this by building dams. Termites build fungus farms in their mounds. We are not the only animals to do this.

Nope, they don't do it in such a manner by any means. As in, you took it out of the context: “us” not satisfying our physical/biological, immediate needs when we're selectively culling a part of a specie!

Besides, co-operation is a different position altogether, one much closer to what I see as "much more like it", as it were...

The arrival of cats in many environments led to the total extermination of many species as catastrophic and swift as the killing of the bison. You missed my point that the reason humans were killing the bison - mostly as a means to starve the Plains Indians - is really of no consequence whatsoever to the bison itself.

Nonsense. Provide such definitive proof, please!

No consequence to the bison itself? How gallantly you have dismissed the whole specie. How cool it must have been to have advocates such as yourself to hear this if you were one of those doing it...

And nope, I didn't miss your point at all: I understood it perfectly and questioned it - but you can't even perceive mine: there is no such "purpose/need" in nature. We are doing it on such a scale for "our" and not "natural/immediate" need [food, shelter, clothes etc.] - i.e. regardless of consequences to Nature and other species, even our own, future generations... A least on occasion! That is our potential. No other living being does that!

Btw, such is the tone of your posts I can't stop myself but smile...

Humans, no matter how much they may like to think they can, cannot place themselves outside the logic of evolution or the laws of physics that govern life. We are part of 'nature', not separate from it.

Jeesuuuusss...

My point: we put ourselves to such a position, by the virtue of our scientific and technological power/capacity, and "influence" 'evolution', so as to create new species, exterminate many, including potentially ourselves.

But I'm sure you still can't connect it to the points I made... Never mind...

2) This point is too garbled to respond to.

Nope it ain't but it's inconvenient for you to deal with it, as you need determinism, "absolute" or at least "immovable grounds" or you feel lost and adrift, it seems - otherwise I can't explain your difficulty of not being able to see even 1% beyond the [current/specific variant of] Darwinistic dogma...

3) A) I refer you to point 1.

B) I did not say anywhere that modern humans do not occupy a space never before occupied.

C) Humans are indeed a remarkable species, quite possibly fatally so.

A) Indeed, please go back to it and slow down a bit, so you can accurately understand it first - at least - and then we may be able to talk. As it is it seems like a game of faulty telephones...

B) An interesting formulation, maybe allowing a bit of Mankind's "specificity" in? You know, the kind where we can alter and even engineer Nature to our "needs", unlike any other species, which capabilities have nothing to do with Nature itself, as seen in terms of satisfying immediate needs and being in an equilibrium with our Environment? Hmmm...

C) Well, if you work the point "a bit" we may even find a common ground to try the critical approach to the "theory"... for a change...

 

[Crispy]

From the elephant's point of view, it makes no difference why the environment changes. Big tusks get you killed (one could imagine a form of tusk-eating bacteria that causes early death, or the introdution of a particular bush that ensnares tusks, trapping the elephant) - therefore elephants with big tusks are selected against.

 

[Brainaddict]

Nope, they are being exterminated for reasons outside of "Natural World" - human notions of greed, power etc. Nothing of the sort exists in "pure nature. Again, conveniently missing the point... Moreover, the gene to grow tusks might still be there, if not dominant - and come back, as it were. You do not know that for sure/absolutely but you are presuming you do.

There are so many misunderstandings and confusions in this paragraph alone - and these are replicated through most of what you're writing - that I don't know where to start

For instance 'greed' is a moral judgement we make and applies in that sense only to humans, but 'greedy behaviour' can be seen in many species, and what is going on inside the animal's head makes no difference to the other animals affected by the behaviour.

 

[gorski]

OK, greed in this sense, as I mentioned, is going beyond one's [immediate] needs. Amassing, as it were, money etc. - as seen especially since the advent of Capitalism [see Locke, for instance: one can always have more money, unlike in barter economy, where ammasing grain senslessly is pointless etc. etc.]. Not that I have seen it in nature. One takes as much as necessary for the season, at most...

But that is the point: apparently such "amoral" behaviour is "natural", and hence "normal", therefore "justified"... Which is a long jump. So, we had these "amoral", mere "observations" in a Modern Society [Hobbes, Malthus etc.], then it explained it all in Nature[Darwin/Wallace], then it's coming back from the Nature itself to... bite us in the arse [social darwinism]...

Is it really all "natural/normal/justified/not questionable"??

Is it really something we see in Nature?

Or is it distincly ours?