Re: Nano Morality

[ Moderator's note: Only spelling and grammar errors that seriously impede
communication should be noted, and then as diplomatically as possible - all
others are best ignored or pointed out via private e-mail. -JimL ]

Firstly the return of grammar and spelling flames on usenet over the
last 2 years has been a rather unpleasant event, probably showing the
decline of usenet as part of the overall world wide web.

I don't have time, or interest, in passing everything I write on the
group through word and pasting it back here. You have been warned for
future reference.

Actually, there is substantial evidence of genes hopping between
eukaryotes, sometimes mediated by viruses.

I've not heard that, biotechnology is not my field. I don't see it
making any impact on the point.

I think that position is indefensible from an evolutionary biology
standpoint. Evolution is always a single organism affair. Merely
because another individual is a member of the same culture does not
mean they are close to me genetically, so genes that would support
such a behavior pattern would not preferentially survive. This is in
contrast to genes that support altruism towards blood relatives. I'd
suggest reading "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins.

First the idea that evolution is a single invdividual affair and not a
species affair is dogma, and not even scientific. Evolution is about
survival and selection, either a single member, really in advanced
creatures 2 memebers, or an entire collection like a hive.

As for a member of the same culture, think about where culture comes
from: clan. For the vast majority of human history a culture was
shared by a clan or tribe, which would all be so close to each other
genetically that they might was well be the same individual.

As for genes being close, humans share 98% of their genome with higher
apes, just take a trip to Japan or Ireland and tell me that people are
not all within 5 generations related.

As for your selection of New York, New York, Chicago, LA, London are
terrible example, exceptions rather than examples. These are places of
intense genetic diversity unkown through most of humanity, and not the
places people live.

Look at Seul, Tokyo, Dublin, Bejing, Dehli, or Moscow and you will see
any random group having very similiar genes.

The fact remains that any gene I have is also carried by thousands, if
not millions of members of my culture, and the survival of my culture
insures the survival of the gene.

If I develop a gene which promotes the survival of another WHO DOES NOT
HAVE THE GENE the gene is by definition selected out, this is basic
evolution which, despite my lack of mastery of english spelling I would
hope you would grant me some understanding of.

But I profoundly doubt that anyone living in a culture has a single
gene not in the stock of the overall culture, I would imagine it would
be rather rare. I profoundly doubt I have one gene not in circulation
among millions of other humans.

Selection works on a species level not an individual level. A species
starts with an individual who forms a transitional form, but it is the
species that must survive. That is why we have bee hives and ant
colonies. I raise rabbits as a hobby and anyone with a garden and
rabbits also gets mice, these higher species quickly teach one of the
affordability of a single individual in favour of reproduction and
species.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading