Re: Nano Morality
- From: rhooker123@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 16:15:19 -0000
Well thank you for pointing me at ViaVoice and Naturally Speaking,
perhaps I had just assumed such systems were such failures I stopped
even looking, I will certainly take a look at these systems and if they
work well I will be very much in your debt.
I'm afraid that the grammar problems in that last pair of paragraphs
make it impossible for me to parse your meaning. Could you try to
re-phrase them?
I was only able to find one grammer error so I must imagine that I
failed to say what I meant.
Firstly I assume the idea of the selfish gene, we are just gene
carriers. Genes used to survive by crafting beings, animals mostly,
but this was slow. Bacteria is both the most successfull creature on
earth and the only ones who can move genetic information laterally.
Human culture is an innovation by genes to produce greater information
innovation, and with the advance in culture individuals are of less and
less importance as cultures become the means by which genes insure
their survival. Members of a culture share most of the same genes so
if a culture survives and developes the genes survive. Technology is
emerging as the genes new way of innovation, and I don't think
technology is really humans inventing things, I think we are now
genetically programmed to do this and our genes are kicking ass because
of technology.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nano Morality
- From: Perry E. Metzger
- Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nano Morality
- References:
- Nano Morality
- From: rhooker123
- Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nano Morality
- From: Perry E. Metzger
- Nano Morality
- Prev by Date: Re: Nano Morality
- Next by Date: Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nano Morality
- Previous by thread: Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nano Morality
- Next by thread: Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nano Morality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|