Talkin' about creationism...
February 3, 2005 2:53 PM Subscribe
He's certainly a bright guy, but i think line honours for post-Darwinian, cultural evolutionary theories must go to the noosphere, courtesy of Teilhard de Chardin.
posted by soi-disant at 3:10 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by soi-disant at 3:10 PM on February 3, 2005
delmoi, what makes you say Esther's a punk? Just curious as I've known of her and never heard anything disparaging before.
This is a good article that makes alot of salient points. I like how he alludes to genetically modified foods as the horizontal gene transfer that existed at the dawn of life on the planet.
Very good and interesting post, Finder.
posted by fenriq at 3:21 PM on February 3, 2005
This is a good article that makes alot of salient points. I like how he alludes to genetically modified foods as the horizontal gene transfer that existed at the dawn of life on the planet.
Very good and interesting post, Finder.
posted by fenriq at 3:21 PM on February 3, 2005
I'm confused (which is easy to do, granted). How is cultural evolution, which occurs only among organisms with big enough brains to hold lots of information, going to replace genetic evolution?
posted by recurve at 3:45 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by recurve at 3:45 PM on February 3, 2005
didn't say it would. I think his point was that human cultural evolution is a greater catalyst for global change than darwinian evolution at this point.
posted by plexiwatt at 3:52 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by plexiwatt at 3:52 PM on February 3, 2005
recurve - what plexiwatt said. Humans will change species far faster than Darwinian evolution can, and their changes will follow cultural rather than Darwinian routes.
This is really fascinating stuff, and pretty obvious when pointed out, as many interesting ideas are.
posted by sid at 3:55 PM on February 3, 2005
This is really fascinating stuff, and pretty obvious when pointed out, as many interesting ideas are.
posted by sid at 3:55 PM on February 3, 2005
I've read lot's of Dyson's (and Dawkin's and Dennett's) stuff before and thought this was just a rehash until those last two paragraphs of the first link.
I love how scientists can go beyond the good and the bad and just state that this is what it is.
posted by furtive at 3:58 PM on February 3, 2005
I love how scientists can go beyond the good and the bad and just state that this is what it is.
posted by furtive at 3:58 PM on February 3, 2005
P.S. The first person to criticise my grammar gets a good beating.
posted by furtive at 3:59 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by furtive at 3:59 PM on February 3, 2005
Ooo! Ooo! There shouldn't be an apostrophe in "lot's"!
Now beat me. Beat me good and HARD. Oh, yes.
posted by kyrademon at 4:02 PM on February 3, 2005
Now beat me. Beat me good and HARD. Oh, yes.
posted by kyrademon at 4:02 PM on February 3, 2005
Carl Woese is the world’s greatest expert in the field of microbial taxonomy. Whatever he writes, even in a speculative vein, is to be taken seriously.
That is a stupid thing to say.
But then, one evil day, a cell resembling a primitive bacterium happened to find itself one jump ahead of its neighbors in efficiency. That cell separated itself from the community and refused to share.
That is astonishing.
posted by Chuckles at 4:20 PM on February 3, 2005
That is a stupid thing to say.
But then, one evil day, a cell resembling a primitive bacterium happened to find itself one jump ahead of its neighbors in efficiency. That cell separated itself from the community and refused to share.
That is astonishing.
posted by Chuckles at 4:20 PM on February 3, 2005
Remember that time Scotty's ship crashlanded on a Dyson sphere?
That was awesome.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 4:22 PM on February 3, 2005
That was awesome.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 4:22 PM on February 3, 2005
From the Wikipedia article:
The most famous example was illustrated in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, in which retired Engineer Scotty (from the original Star Trek) was discovered to have crash-landed on an abandoned Dyson Sphere.
That episode used a Dyson Sphere as a prop and nothing more. There's also Bob Shaw's book "Orbitsville", in which a Dyson Sphere is found and explored. It's a pretty good book; you don't get the sense of scale that Larry Niven's "Ringworld" provides, but it's still a better illustration of a Dyson Sphere than that Star Trek episode is.
Also, I don't completely understand the purpose of this post : a link to a rudimentary summation of Darwinian evolution, and a Wikipedia page? Barf.
posted by interrobang at 4:22 PM on February 3, 2005
The most famous example was illustrated in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, in which retired Engineer Scotty (from the original Star Trek) was discovered to have crash-landed on an abandoned Dyson Sphere.
That episode used a Dyson Sphere as a prop and nothing more. There's also Bob Shaw's book "Orbitsville", in which a Dyson Sphere is found and explored. It's a pretty good book; you don't get the sense of scale that Larry Niven's "Ringworld" provides, but it's still a better illustration of a Dyson Sphere than that Star Trek episode is.
Also, I don't completely understand the purpose of this post : a link to a rudimentary summation of Darwinian evolution, and a Wikipedia page? Barf.
posted by interrobang at 4:22 PM on February 3, 2005
the purpose of this post is that it's a genuinely interesting idea ... one i hadn't heard before
posted by pyramid termite at 4:29 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by pyramid termite at 4:29 PM on February 3, 2005
But then, one evil day, a cell resembling a primitive bacterium happened to find itself one jump ahead of its neighbors in efficiency. That cell separated itself from the community and refused to share.
That must be the guy all the hardcore right-wing CEO types evolved from.
On a more serious note, I agree with the Egyptian insect above; this is a terribly interesting idea which I'm sure many of us had not been exposed to before. It may not be strictly the "best of the Web" but how many links really are? Certainly many have graced the frontpage with less intellectual value than this.
Makes me wonder what this envisioned future would look like; would mankind end up advancing a lot of other species along with itself? Or would there be a split between the species humanity needs to get along, and therefore elevates alongside it, and the rest of them, mouldering on the wayside?
posted by cyrusdogstar at 4:35 PM on February 3, 2005
That must be the guy all the hardcore right-wing CEO types evolved from.
On a more serious note, I agree with the Egyptian insect above; this is a terribly interesting idea which I'm sure many of us had not been exposed to before. It may not be strictly the "best of the Web" but how many links really are? Certainly many have graced the frontpage with less intellectual value than this.
Makes me wonder what this envisioned future would look like; would mankind end up advancing a lot of other species along with itself? Or would there be a split between the species humanity needs to get along, and therefore elevates alongside it, and the rest of them, mouldering on the wayside?
posted by cyrusdogstar at 4:35 PM on February 3, 2005
Yeah, "barf". I said it on purpose. It's a "grody" post.
posted by interrobang at 4:37 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by interrobang at 4:37 PM on February 3, 2005
...a link to a rudimentary summation of Darwinian evolution...
No, I don't think it's just that.
I love how scientists can go beyond the good and the bad and just state that this is what it is.
Yes, this is exactly what I found so fascinating about this.
posted by Finder at 4:40 PM on February 3, 2005
No, I don't think it's just that.
I love how scientists can go beyond the good and the bad and just state that this is what it is.
Yes, this is exactly what I found so fascinating about this.
posted by Finder at 4:40 PM on February 3, 2005
interrobang, its not a Darwinian summation, its a Darwinian circle closing. He's not restating that evolution's dandy, he's saying biological evolution's been trumped by cultural evolution.
It may not be news to you but its a pretty large concept.
And I just had a thought, will the creationists grab on to this as "proof" that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools?
posted by fenriq at 5:06 PM on February 3, 2005
It may not be news to you but its a pretty large concept.
And I just had a thought, will the creationists grab on to this as "proof" that evolution shouldn't be taught in schools?
posted by fenriq at 5:06 PM on February 3, 2005
Hmm.
posted by interrobang at 5:10 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by interrobang at 5:10 PM on February 3, 2005
Makes me wonder what this envisioned future would look like; would mankind end up advancing a lot of other species along with itself?
cyrusdogstar
This is what is giving me trouble. As humans spew out new species, the ecosystems surrounding us will continue to chug along. The vast majority of the new species we create won't be able to live in that surrounding ecology.
Is he just talking about creating cool new pets and flowers? Or creating new species that will take the place of boring, old "Darwinean" species?
posted by recurve at 5:22 PM on February 3, 2005
cyrusdogstar
This is what is giving me trouble. As humans spew out new species, the ecosystems surrounding us will continue to chug along. The vast majority of the new species we create won't be able to live in that surrounding ecology.
Is he just talking about creating cool new pets and flowers? Or creating new species that will take the place of boring, old "Darwinean" species?
posted by recurve at 5:22 PM on February 3, 2005
How many of you guys take memetics seriously? I was considering asking this on the green. There was a lot of chatter about memetics in the mid-nineties, but much of the initial fervor has sort of died away, and I'm curious if people still see cultural evolution as a possible science or a flash-in-the-pan. People use the word 'meme' a lot on the internet, sure, but it usually just seems to mean 'quirky idea' in those contexts. What's the general consensus - can there be a science of memetics?
posted by painquale at 5:23 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by painquale at 5:23 PM on February 3, 2005
I thought it was an interesting post.
The biggest problem I see with this brand of optimistic Transhumanism is that it ignores the very precepts of the theories it’s trying to co-opt. Genetic engineering and cultural evolution may very well add a great many stressor variables to the equation, but there’s simply no reason to claim that they will supplant Darwinian evolution, altogether. The problems are at least partially as follows:
1) Even at the accelerated cycles of Cultural evolution, true evolutionary change takes place over a very large timescale. Yet Dyson is making bold predictions based on just “the last 30 years.” That’s an order of magnitude too early for anything but pure guesswork – even for a talented guesser like Dyson.
2) Evolution is not based on gradual design improvements – it’s based on cumulative random mutations that happen to improve survival odds on average in a given environment. Point being that for genetic engineering and Cultural evolution to overwhelm Darwinian evolution, they would have to ultimately succeed under pressures at which Darwinian evolution failed. Genetic engineering and Cultural evolution, however, are neither random, nor proven to increase the overall odds of survival.
3) Dyson’s prediction assumes that genetic engineering and Cultural evolution are joined at the hip; but despite current trends, there’s really no reason to assume that the current rates of horizontal transfer are stable, let alone linked. To reach the Utopian vision Dyson presents, genetic engineering will have to have a perfect record. Unlike most other human endeavors. One good screw-up, on the other hand, and Cultural evolution might actually work against genetic engineering (if Darwinian evolution, itself doesn't make the point moot).
Evolution doesn't promise any survivors at all, and certainly not the best. Just that the best able to survive at any given time (and therefore able to pass on their unique survival traits) get the biggest vote on the future. But what in the history of Homo Sapiens suggests we have the wisdom to predict what the winning combination of survival traits will really be? More likely that we'll proceed down endless blind allies, or that we’ll get it all hammered out just in time for the environment to change the model. Or simply that the most advantageous changes will not wind up able to reproduce themselves in sufficient numbers to succeed in the long run.
Not saying we can stop the journey – or should even try - just saying that it’s too early to order the champagne, just yet.
posted by Man O' Straw at 5:25 PM on February 3, 2005
The biggest problem I see with this brand of optimistic Transhumanism is that it ignores the very precepts of the theories it’s trying to co-opt. Genetic engineering and cultural evolution may very well add a great many stressor variables to the equation, but there’s simply no reason to claim that they will supplant Darwinian evolution, altogether. The problems are at least partially as follows:
1) Even at the accelerated cycles of Cultural evolution, true evolutionary change takes place over a very large timescale. Yet Dyson is making bold predictions based on just “the last 30 years.” That’s an order of magnitude too early for anything but pure guesswork – even for a talented guesser like Dyson.
2) Evolution is not based on gradual design improvements – it’s based on cumulative random mutations that happen to improve survival odds on average in a given environment. Point being that for genetic engineering and Cultural evolution to overwhelm Darwinian evolution, they would have to ultimately succeed under pressures at which Darwinian evolution failed. Genetic engineering and Cultural evolution, however, are neither random, nor proven to increase the overall odds of survival.
3) Dyson’s prediction assumes that genetic engineering and Cultural evolution are joined at the hip; but despite current trends, there’s really no reason to assume that the current rates of horizontal transfer are stable, let alone linked. To reach the Utopian vision Dyson presents, genetic engineering will have to have a perfect record. Unlike most other human endeavors. One good screw-up, on the other hand, and Cultural evolution might actually work against genetic engineering (if Darwinian evolution, itself doesn't make the point moot).
Evolution doesn't promise any survivors at all, and certainly not the best. Just that the best able to survive at any given time (and therefore able to pass on their unique survival traits) get the biggest vote on the future. But what in the history of Homo Sapiens suggests we have the wisdom to predict what the winning combination of survival traits will really be? More likely that we'll proceed down endless blind allies, or that we’ll get it all hammered out just in time for the environment to change the model. Or simply that the most advantageous changes will not wind up able to reproduce themselves in sufficient numbers to succeed in the long run.
Not saying we can stop the journey – or should even try - just saying that it’s too early to order the champagne, just yet.
posted by Man O' Straw at 5:25 PM on February 3, 2005
Blind "alleys." Not "allies." Damn. Kinda proves the point, though, too - mistakes will find a way.
posted by Man O' Straw at 5:30 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by Man O' Straw at 5:30 PM on February 3, 2005
Oh you people. Just educate yourselves, for Chrissakes.
posted by pantload at 5:33 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by pantload at 5:33 PM on February 3, 2005
Actually, Carl Woese (the crux of the article) has quite the beautiful mind...
I had the pleasure of working on a PBS project that included him and a lot of his theory.
It was my job (Animation Art Director) to take those incredible theories, distill them down and present them in a manner digestible in the average family room.
It made for an interesting "crash course" on his material.
He struck me a one of the most brilliant contemporary thinkers, yet somehow there was something a tad melancholy about him as well.
Anyhow, thanks for the cool link!
Apologies for "tooting my own horn", but if you get an opportunity to view the series, I think you'll find it both interesting, engaging, and educational.
Cheers,
num-
posted by numlok at 6:17 PM on February 3, 2005
I had the pleasure of working on a PBS project that included him and a lot of his theory.
It was my job (Animation Art Director) to take those incredible theories, distill them down and present them in a manner digestible in the average family room.
It made for an interesting "crash course" on his material.
He struck me a one of the most brilliant contemporary thinkers, yet somehow there was something a tad melancholy about him as well.
Anyhow, thanks for the cool link!
Apologies for "tooting my own horn", but if you get an opportunity to view the series, I think you'll find it both interesting, engaging, and educational.
Cheers,
num-
posted by numlok at 6:17 PM on February 3, 2005
Man O' Straw Evolution is not based on gradual design improvements – it’s based on cumulative random mutations that happen to improve survival odds on average in a given environment.
I have to take issue with this, although it might just be semantics. Evolution proceeds through tiny, tiny advances, as imperceptible as slightly bluer eyes, or slightly longer claws. You can't really see evolution going on because generation 10,000 looks almost exactly the same as generation 10,100. Compare to generation 1,876 though, and you'll see some major differences.
Evolution is familial, not individual, which is why individual variations that decrease that individual's reproductive capacity, but improve the individual's family's reproductive capacity, continue to propagate. If population A out-survives population B by 101 children to 100, in a few dozen generations (assuming all other factors are equal) the A's will noticeably outnumber the B's. If the two later become a breeding population, whatever it is that allows the out-survival will spread through the descendants of both. Even if it's doubly recessive, it will still show up in a quarter of the population, which may be enough to get the out-survival effect.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:12 PM on February 3, 2005
I have to take issue with this, although it might just be semantics. Evolution proceeds through tiny, tiny advances, as imperceptible as slightly bluer eyes, or slightly longer claws. You can't really see evolution going on because generation 10,000 looks almost exactly the same as generation 10,100. Compare to generation 1,876 though, and you'll see some major differences.
Evolution is familial, not individual, which is why individual variations that decrease that individual's reproductive capacity, but improve the individual's family's reproductive capacity, continue to propagate. If population A out-survives population B by 101 children to 100, in a few dozen generations (assuming all other factors are equal) the A's will noticeably outnumber the B's. If the two later become a breeding population, whatever it is that allows the out-survival will spread through the descendants of both. Even if it's doubly recessive, it will still show up in a quarter of the population, which may be enough to get the out-survival effect.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:12 PM on February 3, 2005
I had the pleasure of attending a lecture Dyson gave on this last fall at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (I teach at the high school across the street). The linked article was basically the introduction to Dyson's talk.
When he talks about Darwinian evolution being more or less over, he's not so much talking about some sort of cultural evolution replacing it as he his talking about human-controlled speciation replacing it. The lecture began with an interesting if not necessarily completely accurate comparison to computers. Dyson recalled working with von Neumann on one of the first programmable computers. At the time there were only a few computers in the country, and they were accessible only to the very richest of companies and universities. Specialists spent years studying the arcane workings of these devices.
Now computers a thousand times as powerful are toys for kids. "I leave it to you to draw the parallels with today's genetic engineering labs," said Dyson.
My students thought his ideas were pretty far-fetched (crops with silicon leaves, so the black would absorb a higher fraction of the energy from sunlight, etc) but what's the fun of being a futurist if you can't have fun with it?
posted by krakedhalo at 7:26 PM on February 3, 2005
When he talks about Darwinian evolution being more or less over, he's not so much talking about some sort of cultural evolution replacing it as he his talking about human-controlled speciation replacing it. The lecture began with an interesting if not necessarily completely accurate comparison to computers. Dyson recalled working with von Neumann on one of the first programmable computers. At the time there were only a few computers in the country, and they were accessible only to the very richest of companies and universities. Specialists spent years studying the arcane workings of these devices.
Now computers a thousand times as powerful are toys for kids. "I leave it to you to draw the parallels with today's genetic engineering labs," said Dyson.
My students thought his ideas were pretty far-fetched (crops with silicon leaves, so the black would absorb a higher fraction of the energy from sunlight, etc) but what's the fun of being a futurist if you can't have fun with it?
posted by krakedhalo at 7:26 PM on February 3, 2005
can there be a science of memetics?
Cultural anthropology? Beyond that, a good understanding of the mind's software is most likely required before a more rigorous discipline can be formed.
As for the parallel between home computers and home genetics... I am forced to remember the tendency of the mainstream to adopt a large technological advancement only after said advancement can be said to involve sex in some way.
I leave it to you to draw the parallels with today's spam.
posted by catachresoid at 8:05 PM on February 3, 2005
Cultural anthropology? Beyond that, a good understanding of the mind's software is most likely required before a more rigorous discipline can be formed.
As for the parallel between home computers and home genetics... I am forced to remember the tendency of the mainstream to adopt a large technological advancement only after said advancement can be said to involve sex in some way.
I leave it to you to draw the parallels with today's spam.
posted by catachresoid at 8:05 PM on February 3, 2005
This seems like a total rehash of Dawkins, and a classic example of popular journalism butchering scientific theories. If you define Darwinian evolution as selection through survival of the fittest, then none of the phenomenon the article describes conflict with Darwinism at all. Its just that nature is selecting the fittest gene, rather than the fittest genome (or the fittest meme instead of the fittest genome, at the other end of history). Furthermore, the notion that bacteria were preceeded by membranous bubbles of genes fusing and splitting has been boring for at least 40 years, and the term "horizontal gene transfer" is neither new nor coined by Dyson.
posted by gsteff at 8:13 PM on February 3, 2005
posted by gsteff at 8:13 PM on February 3, 2005
Evolution is familial, not individual, which is why individual variations that decrease that individual's reproductive capacity, but improve the individual's family's reproductive capacity, continue to propagate.
Not really. If that were true, females would outnumber males. Selection acts on genes, which sometimes can have effects that appear similar to group selectionism, and more often has effects that appear similar to individual selectionism. If a gene for female descendents ever became common, there would be an immediate advantage for genes that make males more common. More females would help populations, but the competition between individual genes makes a 50/50 ratio basically universal throughout nature.
posted by gsteff at 8:20 PM on February 3, 2005
Not really. If that were true, females would outnumber males. Selection acts on genes, which sometimes can have effects that appear similar to group selectionism, and more often has effects that appear similar to individual selectionism. If a gene for female descendents ever became common, there would be an immediate advantage for genes that make males more common. More females would help populations, but the competition between individual genes makes a 50/50 ratio basically universal throughout nature.
posted by gsteff at 8:20 PM on February 3, 2005
aeschenkarnos - It was just semantics, indeed. I was trying to say pretty much what you said in as few words as possible, since my comment was running long. Guess I tried to imply too much with just the word "cumulative."
Was trying to point out that profound changes are triggered by many thousands of "tiny, tiny advances" surviving on merit. Our clumsy attempts at largescale design improvements based on an incomplete understanding of what might equal merit in an idealized model of some particular environment are likely to trigger unintended consequences both systemically, and environmentally. And the ramifications of any mistakes - and I include social, political, and economic mistakes in the equation - are likely to cause lasting backlash.
krakedhalo - "When he talks about Darwinian evolution being more or less over, he's not so much talking about some sort of cultural evolution replacing it as he his talking about human-controlled speciation replacing it." [My emphasis.]
I think the word I have the biggest problem with here is "controlled." "Initiated," perhaps. But "controlled" seems just a tad idealistic to me. I don't see that we have "control" over how we impact the environment (and therefore our own ultimate survival) now, let alone in some hypothetical near future where schoolchildren are encouraged to introduce foreign invaders into the ecosystem for fun and profit.
posted by Man O' Straw at 8:46 PM on February 3, 2005
Was trying to point out that profound changes are triggered by many thousands of "tiny, tiny advances" surviving on merit. Our clumsy attempts at largescale design improvements based on an incomplete understanding of what might equal merit in an idealized model of some particular environment are likely to trigger unintended consequences both systemically, and environmentally. And the ramifications of any mistakes - and I include social, political, and economic mistakes in the equation - are likely to cause lasting backlash.
krakedhalo - "When he talks about Darwinian evolution being more or less over, he's not so much talking about some sort of cultural evolution replacing it as he his talking about human-controlled speciation replacing it." [My emphasis.]
I think the word I have the biggest problem with here is "controlled." "Initiated," perhaps. But "controlled" seems just a tad idealistic to me. I don't see that we have "control" over how we impact the environment (and therefore our own ultimate survival) now, let alone in some hypothetical near future where schoolchildren are encouraged to introduce foreign invaders into the ecosystem for fun and profit.
posted by Man O' Straw at 8:46 PM on February 3, 2005
Man O'Straw: But "controlled" seems just a tad idealistic to me.
The word I thought of was triumphalist...
It does bear a lot of thought though. It makes me think of Frank Herbert's 'Golden Path'. It is fine to assume you have it right in your day to day life, but you would be a fool to lead the whole species down the same path. Diversity!
posted by Chuckles at 8:57 PM on February 3, 2005
The word I thought of was triumphalist...
It does bear a lot of thought though. It makes me think of Frank Herbert's 'Golden Path'. It is fine to assume you have it right in your day to day life, but you would be a fool to lead the whole species down the same path. Diversity!
posted by Chuckles at 8:57 PM on February 3, 2005
The idea can be better expressed as a generalization of the concept of evolution beyond its traditional biological trappings. The specific mechanisms of action vary.
Much more interesting, in my opinion, is that this point of view also suggests the macroscopic evolutionary action of a system may decompose semi-hierarchically into increasingly microscopic sets of interacting evolutionary actions.
Further generalization of the notion of evolutionary action also might provide a potential framework for building models of macroscopic complex system behavior upon similarly hierarchical, increasingly microscopic interactions of system components (and, obviously, intermediate components).
Based on some rough initial work, an abstracted mathematical expression of this framework would seem to require some new math, though very suggestive of a group theoretic approach.
posted by justin at 3:19 AM on February 4, 2005
Much more interesting, in my opinion, is that this point of view also suggests the macroscopic evolutionary action of a system may decompose semi-hierarchically into increasingly microscopic sets of interacting evolutionary actions.
Further generalization of the notion of evolutionary action also might provide a potential framework for building models of macroscopic complex system behavior upon similarly hierarchical, increasingly microscopic interactions of system components (and, obviously, intermediate components).
Based on some rough initial work, an abstracted mathematical expression of this framework would seem to require some new math, though very suggestive of a group theoretic approach.
posted by justin at 3:19 AM on February 4, 2005
Definitely an interesting article, but I am not ready to agree with it just yet. A major flaw in Dyson's prediction of a post-Darwinian biology is when he states: The epoch of species competition came to an end about 10 thousand years ago when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. Although we humans like to think of ourselves as the top of the evolutionary heap, Stephen Jay Gould puts forth a good argument that bacteria are the dominant life form on the planet, and are likely to remain so for the forseable future.
posted by TedW at 7:05 AM on February 4, 2005
posted by TedW at 7:05 AM on February 4, 2005
Hmm, I have a question on these dyson spheres. The external gravitational feild of a sphere is the same as a point of the same mass at its center. On the inside of a sphere, the gravitational feild is works out to zero at all points (in other words, you'd be weightless).
So how is there supposed to be gravity in a dyson's sphere? If it was filled with air or whatnot, you'd end up being pulled too the center.
posted by delmoi at 7:22 AM on February 4, 2005
So how is there supposed to be gravity in a dyson's sphere? If it was filled with air or whatnot, you'd end up being pulled too the center.
posted by delmoi at 7:22 AM on February 4, 2005
Wow, I didn't realize that FD was still alive. However...
Also, biotech games for children, played with real eggs and seeds rather than with images on a screen.
Meaning that the same toys would be available to any and most adults. Including ones who aren't quite able to, or interested in, worrying quite as much about the results as I would prefer. Insane, criminal or freedom fighter, the result is likely to be just as disastrous for the rest of us.
As I was saying the other day to a friend, every year killing more people gets faster, easier and cheaper.
posted by billsaysthis at 2:17 PM on February 5, 2005
Also, biotech games for children, played with real eggs and seeds rather than with images on a screen.
Meaning that the same toys would be available to any and most adults. Including ones who aren't quite able to, or interested in, worrying quite as much about the results as I would prefer. Insane, criminal or freedom fighter, the result is likely to be just as disastrous for the rest of us.
As I was saying the other day to a friend, every year killing more people gets faster, easier and cheaper.
posted by billsaysthis at 2:17 PM on February 5, 2005
« Older Deals to die for! | The Japanese sleep. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 3:04 PM on February 3, 2005