From: alias@removenetserver.org   
      
   On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:29:40 +0000, Kevin Calder wrote:   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >>> This unlikely example is, however, as close as I can get to imagining a   
   >>> peaceful society which has no understanding of conflict.   
   >   
   >>what about an extremely simple one?  not a tribal gig (people seem to   
   >>start thinking spears and war chants whenever u use the word tribal) but a   
   >>nice smallish agrarian society..   
   >   
   >>not sure.. but i'm thinking it would be pretty peaceful.   
   >   
   > Provided it had abundant, easily accessible resources I suppose.  I   
   > don't think that human's fight needlessly, its just that there is some   
   > disagreement about what each individual "needs".  I'd like to think that   
   > if life was easy enough that there wasn't really much to fight about   
   > then we would become pretty peaceful.  I think we'd need to be pretty   
   > intellectually sophisticated for this though, so that we could discern   
   > anti-social emotion and behave in a socially responsible manner.   
      
   i'm not sure. we'd have to be something other than what we currently are..   
   thats certain.  there's a bias towards assuming that intelligence would   
   lead to better behavior.. but i find that generally those of us in the   
   above average brackets just use it as an excuse to justify our bad   
   behavior.. i do.   
      
   i stole a 9600 baud modem when i was about 12 (which i think cost a few   
   hundred at the time).. but it wasn't stealing man.. it was "resource   
   appropriation" .. it was "liberation of unfairly distributed goods" this   
   "theft" never bothered me, i have great terminology to cover it.   
      
   i doubt that the current model human could ever live in a society without   
   that sort of petty transgression.. and even violent ones (of a lesser   
   nature than drive-by shootings) would be common as well.. but by   
   comparison to our current environment thats peace.   
      
      
   > I'm a bit lefty, but even then I find that I often base action on   
   > selfish motivations rather than socially responsible ones.  I once stole   
   > a painting table that was out in my buildings hallway for instance :)   
   > I'm not sure why, but I reckon that if I'd had my own painting table I   
   > wouldn't have bothered.   
   >   
   > Oh, I don't know...   
   >   
   > Does anyone think that if we lived in some kind of Eden that we'd all be   
   > well behaved?   
      
   no.. but there's a difference between eating the apple and burning the tree   
   down.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >>>>evolution, being a process that takes place on a time scale beyond ur   
   >>>>objective reckoning, may not appear to be ongoing.. but yeah, it is.   
   >   
   >>> Can we still call it 'evolution' then if say it were only 'taking   
   >>> place' over an infinite amount of time, or even a time scale that   
   >>> renders it unrecognisable 'as we know it'.  Isn't that making it all a   
   >>> bit mystical?   
   >   
   >>well.. i don't think so.. evolution is spread over millions of years, at   
   >>the least.  so.. i think that makes it an unrecognizable time scale by   
   >>human standards..   
   >   
   > Are there conditions when selection stops occurring?   
      
   tough question.. i do not think so.   
      
   the only possibility for selection to cease might be the point where we   
   take control of our evolutionary destiny ourselves and begin modifying   
   our genetics directly.. but u could also argue that its still selection.   
      
   errors would not be repeated if they were detriments, successes would be   
   incorporated into the new model.. etc.  its selection by a new means.. but   
   still, always in the background, mother natures old standard would be   
   judging the results for sheer survivability.  she tends not to tolerate   
   failures.   
      
   >   
   > Like if we were to live forever, not compete for resources and safely be   
   > able to bear as many children as we liked...   
      
   there are many examples of animals so perfectly adapted to their   
   environment that they have not required any further evolution.. sharks   
   come to mind.  but again, if the environment changes it starts right up   
   again.   
      
   ..   
   alias   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)