Reading "The Mote in God's Eye" by Niven/Pournelle. I had been reading EE Doc Smith's Lensman series, which was written even earlier.
I must say, it is always entertaining reading old sci-fi. Spaceships with tape drives on them and the like.
But then no matter what you can imagine, at one point in time it will probably be the technological equivalent of stone knives and bearskins.
What I did like was the brief discussion (In The Mote) on evolution and how humanity has reached a peak in evolution because it is now able to mold the world around it and survival of the fittest no longer applies because of our ability to let the sick/injured to live their lives.
I've felt that way about humanity for a while. We can advance, we can learn more, but I do not see us evolving.
Does that mean we are stagnating? Does it mean we will become vulnerable?
Perhaps.
I was thinking about illness and disease and wondering if the immunity to those things is a form of evolution. I don't think that is the proper way to determine evolution. It can't be shown in little steps, because there is no way of knowing if those steps will be important, or if they will end up being a dead end.
I certainly wouldn't say that the Spaniards were more evolved than the Central American tribes they met in the 15th century, just because the Spaniards had resistances to Old World diseases which the natives didn't.
Certainly evolution isn't going to be evident on such a small timeframe.
Perhaps in the same light, I cannot say that a lack of evolution would be evident on such a small timeframe either.
But theoretically, based on the direction we are taking and the goals behind what we wish to do, we are moving away from evolution.
We want to extend the status quo, make life longer, make everyone healthy, avoid change.
If someone developed an evolutionary feature spontaneously, we would probably try to `heal' it. And then modify whatever situation caused the situation so that it wouldn't happen again.
Maybe we want to control evolution as well. Shape not only our external to match our wants, but also our internal.
And that's just a scary thought considering what we have done to our world so far.
Posted by hugin at Abril 1, 2003 09:55 AMIt's funny reading how the year 2000 was supposed to be like in old stories. Cars that flew themselves, videophones, computers that could think for themselves.
I've been getting into P.K. Dick lately, though a lot of his stuff isn't really science-fiction as much as Orwellian gloom and doom stuff.
Posted by: stacey on Abril 1, 2003 01:16 PMfrom mom - is your finger feeling better?
and - she wonders about civilization and its future evolution (or lack thereof). She votes for nature, not man. Extrapolate please.
Yup, finger is much better. When I burned it, wow was it painful! There were times when I couldn't take it out of the cold water for more than a few seconds before it started to hurt, other times I could do stuff and it wouldn't hurt for a while.
But it's better now, small not quite blister on my finger that I've been putting Vitamin E on.
As for nature/man. That is granted. Regardless of what man does nature will endure. Not necessarily in the form it is in now, but something would survive.
Now civilization might evolve. Although if present society is any indication, it is also a long way off.
Civilization also tries to mold the world, being a by-product of humanity. But it is also much more immature than humanity, and has more potential for evolution.
We've already seen attempts at civilizational evolution of a sort in various dead-ends in the form of political deaths (monarchy, feudalism, communism).
Posted by: Hugin on Abril 2, 2003 10:10 AM