-> SK>they want to live. But, we live in a society with others, and what
-> we SK>decide to do can affect others. Each individual does have some
-> SK>responsibilities to the others in society with which he lives. I
-> do not SK>wish to debate that with you, and if you try I will simply
-> not respond. SK>That is a tenet for me, that you cannot change. No
-> man is an island.
-> One might go further, and argue that Mankind as a whole
-> represents an extended organism which must evolve.
One might, but I got tired enough of arguing with Michael as it is. ;-)
-> Michael sees Illich's position as an evolutionary one,
-> where I'm beginning to see it as anti-technological which
-> might lead to stagnation of the species.
This is similar to what I've been gathering from his more recent posts.
-> I'm reading an interesting book which is based upon this
-> idea: The Millennial Project; the author is Marshall T.
-> Savage.  He cites the example of a closed bottle containing
-> yeast cells.  As the cells double each day, the bottle
-> becomes filled by the 30th day and all the cells die.  The
-> last chance to impact on this situation is on the 29th day.
This reminds me of the program I wrote recently to model the game of
"Life" as played out on a computer. If you get to the point where the
entire grid is full of cells (or close, in certain formations) the
entire colony of cells die.
(* attempt to get this message on-topic*):
I am considering assigning this as a programming problem to my class
this year. Are you familiar with the game? I had seen it before, but
never programmed it until last week.
-> The thrust is similar: mankind as an extended organism which must
-> evolve and press forward as a
-> moral imperative...
Interesting. Nice topic for another echo. ;-)
Sheila
--- PCBoard (R) v15.22/M 10
---------------