Musings

Point two. .5 bil. people David? Thinning the herd is natural, what this proposes is genocide, in my opinion.
 Point 3. Didn't the Nazis attempt this in WW II? Steven Hawking wouldn't have made the cut, would he?
 Point 4. Esperanto, anyone? Better to encourage multilinguistic skills, if not in Junior High (Middle School) and High School, then in Adult Ed.

My arguments are withdrawn. I will now slink back to Operas Lounge, where I belong.

Hello dave, I don't know if you have read Charles Darwin's notes, made while he was on the voyage of "The Beagle"?

A little nearer to our time, in fact very much of our time, is Richard Dawkins. Professor Richard Dawkins is (quote):

"a world-renowned evolutionary biologist and author. His first book, The Selfish Gene (1976), was an instant international bestseller, and has become an established classic work of modern evolutionary bilogy. The Blind Watchmaker 1986, too, has become world-famous. His other works for the general public, every one highly successful, include River Out of Eden (1995), Climbing Mount Improbable (1996) and Unweaving the Rainbow (1998)." (end quote)

I'm presently reading his The Ancestor's Tale (A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life) (2006).

I'll talk about him more, in reference to the topic you have posted, but first would like to know if you are familiar with his writing and his work?

Best wishes

* see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ancestor%27s_Tale

Born Free writes: As an adherent of the Live-and-Let-live philosophy, I cannot support or accept anything that even remotely resembles Social Engineering. I like how you think, lokutus.

Cool.

" It would be easy to get everyone to convert, as English is the language of business, while Latin is the language of science, for the most part."

I agree,
the root of most languages is Latin and there is an 80% of the World Countries that teach English as a second language to kids starting in Kindergarden.

Another great post David,

"As an adherent of the Live-and-Let-live philosophy, I cannot support or accept anything that even remotely resembles Social Engineering. "

Thank you. "Social Engineering" is at work, has been at work for much of the 20th Century and still at work in the 21st Century. Whether it be through a political system, or through a caste system, or through an elitist system it is not a random act of nature. It is not as a result of a "selfish gene" intent on survival and the reproduction of itself towards that end. The "selfish gene" is not aware of and could not care about any other gene. It knows nothing of any "competiton", is only intent on its own survival and it adapts accordingly to survive and if it cannot successfuly adapt over time it becomes extinct.

Born Free writes: Thank you lokutus for that bit of knowledge and common sense. It seems to me that mankind has this odd tendency to go too far in everything he attempts. The phenomenon of our world taking a Hard Right is slowly turning around again. Though social engineering might sound good on paper to some, it ultimately fails as people realize who its primary benefactors are. It's always about power and control and the Live-and-let-live thought process will forever reject all forms of Machiavellianism in today's educated world.

"Live-and-let-live thought process will forever reject all forms of Machiavellianism in today's educated world. "

One would hope so, but this is an aspiration. I have a copy of Machiavelli's treatise The Prince (in book form). Machiavelli was alluding to 'human nature' and 'human behavior' in his advice to The Prince.

Death & Taxes are said to be the two constants.
But the third must surely be human nature and this in itself tends to mitigate,in general,against the noble idea,the thing that you would wish to see,brought to fruition, to become a permanent 'norm' in practice.

"Machiavellian behaviour" is almost a cliche but it describes those parts of human nature that are not always constrained in human behavior, in certain circumstances and situations.

Thus, we are faced with 'human behavior' that allows the negative parts of human nature to manifest either by deliberate action - for which there is a consequence and a 'hypothetical deterrent' (such being so, unless it proves to be the solution that prevents repetition) or by actions that are erroneous and can be treated in proportion to the result and in consequence not committed again (this too is an aspiration).

Born Free writes: Interesting stuff, Lokutus. Another common aspiration is to merge into group consciousness and unity, one being so to speak. It seems to me we are already one being yet remain individuals. The more we are aware of and act like ourselves, the more valuable we are to the total creature. Unlike the modern corporate/socialist state, which requires carbon-copy invariant "individuals" in order for its computers to predict and control social economic political events, the living breathing organically-structured being that inhabits this planet, that is now in the process of becoming conscious of itself, has need of the greatest possible diversity in its component parts. The more diverse an ecological system, the healthier it is. So why not embrace our individuality, our self-ness? We have nothing to lose but our credit cards.

Wow! I have never heard of these stones before! They are filled with wisdom! Thank you for sharing them!

" The more diverse an ecological system, the healthier it is."

As a general proposition this statement rings true, for in the chain of ecology the relations of organisms one to another, and their physical surroundings, has significant meaning to bilogists.

But I would refer you back to Darwin & Dawkins, both eminent and well respected for their significant study and propositions, such being accepted by many** of their peers who do not suffer any premise that could not be rigorously examined and debated and proven through research and study of argument and evidence offered (**I cannot ever say "all", because of the diversity of thought and opinion and argument from some quarters).

As regards the other things you put forward? These are more to do with the spirit and the pschye of human endeavor and belief, than with science, per se. I support the ideal, the dream, the principle of your suggestions but there is still much to ponder and to consider, for we must first know ourselves in the deepest sense, before we try to organise others in that same sense.

Forgive me if any of my words here and previously seem to be stating a 'single truth'. That's not my intent. I offer an opinion on these things and I am subject to fallibility and error.

There are many 'truths' on the path to ultimate truth. God knows.

Hello Dave, I won't say this can't happen in a 'fantasy-fiction' scenario. It's already imagined, in a similar context, and written about in science-fiction novels. In one particularly outstanding example the author has produced a universe that is credible in one's imgaination, as a work of outstanding sci-fi. If you read Part I. of the "The Void Trilogy" by Peter F. Hamilton you will see how his imagination works and what a masterpice of fantasy he produces.Here's a link that will give you more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_F._Hamilton

Your own imagination is also very rich in detail and gives an example of a possible portent that could be part of a scenario one might call - "the shape of things to come" (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Things_to_Come) but if I may borrow a verse from Lewis Carrol's famous nonsense poem :

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!"

by which, I suggest that the worst things that we can imagine are some times only shadows of our own collective fears and not an actual portent of what will happen.

You may be right in your imagined scenario - let me describe it as a forecast - but I would opine that 50 years is too early. I think it would more likely be a few hundred years to attain the level of technology combined with connectivity in the way you so clearly write about

There are also 'shades' of Mary Shelly's creation, emerging in the things you predict. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley

I'm inclined to take the role of HAL as I read your fearful prognostication and say, in parody, "...what are you saying dave?..."

Born Free writes: Interesting POV, Lokutus. When the topic of science comes up, what comes to mind is that at one time our planet was positively, without a doubt, non ambiguously, plain and clearly, unequivocally, empirically-proven ... FLAT! A clear distinction should be made between what is not found by science and what is found to be nonexistent; but what science merely does not find is a completely different matter. More and more scientists are now coming forward and saying "We really don't know a damn thing for sure." (Darwin and Dawkins excluded). In modern scientific terms, physicists, in their pursuit of understanding the nature of physical reality, have reached a stage where they have lost the concept of solid matter; they can't come up with the real indentity of matter. So they are beginning to see things in more holistic terms, in terms of interrelationships rather than discreet, independent, concrete objects. I am quite comfortable with that logic. LOL!

"In modern scientific terms, physicists, in their pursuit of understanding the nature of physical reality, have reached a stage where they have lost the concept of solid matter; they can't come up with the real indentity of matter. So they are beginning to see things in more holistic terms, in terms of interrelationships rather than discreet, independent, concrete objects. "

If this is your opinion I certainly respect your point of view - but if you have seen and/or read evidence of such things I would be interested in reading the source material and then I can 'weigh up' what has been evidenced and think it over.

Born Free writes: "I would be interested in reading the source material and then I can 'weigh up' what has been evidenced and think it over." There are tons of sources on this subject. Google in wikipedia for starters: physicists and matter