Re: Evolution WAS Re: Optimum number of symbols

On Fri, 24 May 2002 16:42:48 -0700, JS Bangs <jaspax@...>
wrote:

>Raymond Brown sikyal:
>
>> >Evolution goes both ways, but in the field of technology, the
>> >accumulative effect (two steps forward, one step back) goes towards
>> >progress.
>>
>> Like, er, the production of nuclear weapons. Yep, a great advance in
>> evolution since the primitive spear.  You can kill only one guy at time
>> with a spear; obviously we need progress...
>
>Indeed.  If your goal is killing people, developing nuclear weapons is a
>fabulous improvement, offering approximately a 100000% increase over the
>most efficient ways to kill people before.  Do you have any idea how long
>it would take to kill 60,000 Japanese people with a spear?
>
>Technology does, in fact, do a fabulous job of improving whatever you're
>hoping to improve.  If you want to place blame, don't put it on
>"technology," but on those who decide that destruction is the thing that
>needs to be worked on.
>
>> >Technology builds on itself, and who knows where it will
>> >end.
>>
>> Armageddon??
>
>We can only hope.
>
>
>Jesse S. Bangs jaspax@u.washington.edu

To be clear:

My intention was to *name* a process which, I feel, is an undeniable
fact of human history.  It was not my intention to attribute any
moral evaluations to that process.  By calling it an 'improvement',
I was asserting that the innovation of the Greek vowel letter was
clearly a *technological* improvement over earlier writing systems.
It might be noted at this point that the name of the thread is
"Optimum number of symbols".  I am not sure how such a question
could be debated without resort to such technological appraisals.

I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, particularly for those
pitifuls inadvertantly inflicted by involuntary visions of nuclear
holocaust due to the mention of the development of the Greek vowel.


Regards

Reply