|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
UF Philosophy Corner: Ethics | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-31 07:55:43 |
|
Basically yes. | by vectorz | 2009-03-31 08:14:03 |
|
What is so important about it, though? | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-31 08:19:47 |
|
Vested interest, kinship selection, | by toysbfun | 2009-03-31 08:34:47 |
|
How often does an individual | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-31 08:45:44 |
|
The most cogent argument I've seen for the | by twixt | 2009-03-31 09:51:31 |
|
So you're saying | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-31 09:57:16 |
|
Yup. Because if we hadn't done this in the past, | by twixt | 2009-03-31 12:28:08 |
|
Isn't that a bit circular? | by MatthewDBA | 2009-03-31 13:00:29 |
| And what is the difference between |
by twixt |
2009-03-31 13:24:20 |
"this approach is warranted because it's been used before" and "this worked last time, let's do it again"?
Genes are conserved for a reason. The genes that are conserved enchance survival value in a competitive environment. Whether we like it or not, that's the environment we live in. As a result, we are genetically programmed to strive to excel in a competitive environment. That we fail sometimes is also inevitable. That we get back up and adapt - rather than allow ourselves to be trampled into dust by our competition - is the reason the species survives.
Consequently, we are also aware that "this worked before, let's do it again" is inferior to "this worked before, let's experiment and see if we can find something that works even better this time". So we do that as well. We are also aware of "that produced a disaster last time, let's see if we can design something that avoids the possibility of that disaster this time".
And like yesterday, we are dealing with base-functionality here - the survival of the species. The arguments are going to be circular for the same reasons as discussed yesterday - because there is no deeper realm from which to mine.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
