The spontaneous generation idea (on the Human Genetic Evolution Site) was pretty interesting. They brought up an old myth that combining sweaty underwear with corn-husks and leaving them for 21 days would produce mice! At least we know now that mice probably won't appear out of dirty underwear and pure magic. It still is quite fascinating that living things generate and grow, even if we know some of the smaller workings of how this physically happens.
The page on Prokaryotes, Eukaryotes and viruses was pretty interesting as well. It would be pretty cool if us humans could be purely autotrophic; live on pure sunlight and chemical reaction.
The definition on wikipedia of autopoiesis made me think of the undivided whole.
DEFINITION: "An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network." (Maturana, Varela, 1980, p. 78)"An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network." (Maturana, Varela, 1980, p. 78)
In a sense wouldn't the system we live in be along these lines?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Chimps and humans...
Chimps and humans are very similar genetically, and this should really come as no surprise. The most fundamental needs and actions of chimpanzees are really no different from ours, they just haven't developed the advanced technology we have, and as far as that goes it's debatable as to who has more wisdom and foresight...just a thought...
It's interesting how many people want to distance themselves from other creatures of this planet, and even distance themselves from the planet itself. When you think about the different possibilities of how life-energy could express itself elsewhere in the universe, all beings on earth are really quite similar. Considering this, we are VERY similar to chimps, and I don't really feel that it would change much if they where classified as closer to us...hopefully they would be less abused in lab testing and zoos.
It's interesting how many people want to distance themselves from other creatures of this planet, and even distance themselves from the planet itself. When you think about the different possibilities of how life-energy could express itself elsewhere in the universe, all beings on earth are really quite similar. Considering this, we are VERY similar to chimps, and I don't really feel that it would change much if they where classified as closer to us...hopefully they would be less abused in lab testing and zoos.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Darwinism and evo devo
Darwinism matters to me in a few ways. When we look at the various concepts of evolution, it seems to be clear that artificial genetic modification will continue to throw irreversible problems into the genetic make up of our food. By skipping past the natural selection of genetic combinations in order to manipulate plants to have characteristics not needed for the PLANTS survival, we will surely lose many valuable edible and medicinal plants as they are no longer in balance with their environment.
In the article "Why Darwinism Matters," there is much talk about morality. The scientists in the article are discussing the implications of Darwinism being the ultimate truth, and many are saying that ideas of God or morality are merely adaptations of the brain to help us survive better. It's again apparent that many scientists believe their theories and beliefs are free from their own worldview. There is little difference between the ethnocentrism of a religious group, and the ethnocentrism of science. This is a very difficult concept for us to understand, but science is JUST ONE of many concepts to help us understand the universe. It's commonly accepted that science holds the answer to all questions, when it really just breaks tangible concepts into smaller and smaller pieces. It can be a great tool to help figure out the function of things, but it still leaves out the motive and intention behind things, or the intangible reality.
Again the limited wordview is apparent when Arthur Leff talks about the place of God being the one above all others, and the basis for moral, therefore being an adaptation of the human brain. He then goes on to say that without a 'God' there are no morals. I challenge Arthur to the fact that many of us do not believe in one God...or Him. Through observing the natural order of things, it's understood that certain actions would be unbalanced and unsustainable, hence we can and do have 'moral' without 'Him' or a 'one god.' This also does not eliminate the possibility of spirit or spirits.
Darwinism matters in that it can show us some valuable things about us and the environment we live in. It just doesn't need to be taken as the one and only exclusive truth. It's simply a very valuable and fascinating COMPONENT of physical understanding.
In the article "Why Darwinism Matters," there is much talk about morality. The scientists in the article are discussing the implications of Darwinism being the ultimate truth, and many are saying that ideas of God or morality are merely adaptations of the brain to help us survive better. It's again apparent that many scientists believe their theories and beliefs are free from their own worldview. There is little difference between the ethnocentrism of a religious group, and the ethnocentrism of science. This is a very difficult concept for us to understand, but science is JUST ONE of many concepts to help us understand the universe. It's commonly accepted that science holds the answer to all questions, when it really just breaks tangible concepts into smaller and smaller pieces. It can be a great tool to help figure out the function of things, but it still leaves out the motive and intention behind things, or the intangible reality.
Again the limited wordview is apparent when Arthur Leff talks about the place of God being the one above all others, and the basis for moral, therefore being an adaptation of the human brain. He then goes on to say that without a 'God' there are no morals. I challenge Arthur to the fact that many of us do not believe in one God...or Him. Through observing the natural order of things, it's understood that certain actions would be unbalanced and unsustainable, hence we can and do have 'moral' without 'Him' or a 'one god.' This also does not eliminate the possibility of spirit or spirits.
Darwinism matters in that it can show us some valuable things about us and the environment we live in. It just doesn't need to be taken as the one and only exclusive truth. It's simply a very valuable and fascinating COMPONENT of physical understanding.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
How might technology help shape our future path?
There are many ways that technology can help shape our path, both for the better and worse. While technology has enabled people to 'manufacture' all types of genetically modified or chemically altered food, it has also enabled us to accurately determine the negative side-effects of these foods. The need for sustainable high-yield crops is vital with the over-crowding of resources, so it's understandable for people to want to genetically modify food in order to maximize the limited resources, but we find every time that it doesn't work to shortcut the natural cycle of things. In a way, the modern technology is catching up with the ancient wisdom of the Daoists and other people who lived in harmony with their environment. It's not always clear what can be done at this stage to live in relative balance with our environment(that is, without starving, or damaging our resources) but there are some promising farming techniques that are being developed with the modern technology(permaculture comes to mind...). With the scientific understanding of plants, and the ability to chart results and predict future results it's possible to explain to the general public the need to be conscious about our eating habits...among other things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)