From: Jef Allbright (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jan 31 2005 - 15:19:12 MST
Phil Goetz wrote:
>--- Phil Goetz <email@example.com> wrote:
>Oops - I forgot that Gould specifically argues
>that this argument may not apply to societies,
>which may in fact tend to become more complex
>over time. Although I don't buy his argument.
>The conclusion may be right, but his claim that
>the ability to transfer skills from person to
>person via language throws all the rules of
>random-walk evolution out the door doesn't make
>sense to me. Communicating acquired skills just
>changes evolution from Darwinian to Lamarckian,
>but I don't know that it would change its
This is the heart of the question of interest to me. If I understand
you correctly, you are saying there is essentially no progress in human
society toward more objective understanding of the world around them. I
argue that progress, at all scales, is inevitable.
Am I understanding you correctly? If we can agree on this point of
departure, then I would be very interested in exploring further.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT