RE: future language

From: Trupeljak Ozren (
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 19:51:10 BST

  • Next message: Trupeljak Ozren: "RE: future language"

    Received: by id TAA20853 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 1 May 2002 19:56:31 +0100
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 11:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
    From: Trupeljak Ozren <>
    Subject: RE: future language
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Precedence: bulk

    --- Vincent Campbell <> wrote:
    > Anthropologists are biased though where humans are concerned aren't
    > they?

    Of course they are, but so are we all. Some of us, though, don't know
    their biases. I used anthropologists as an example of specialists who
    can state far more clearly then I can, what is the treasure that we are
    dumping in the manure pile...

    > Really though, I see your point. Like Wade's point also, I
    > can see
    > the value and beauty of things like aboriginal stories and so on, and
    > there
    > is a loss there when such things go. So, yeah, I should qualify my
    > opinion (spouted in haste).

    Every little counts, IMO. :)
    I beg to differ from Wade-like oppinions, simply because I think they
    are way to limited. Thoreau and his contemporaries talked about beauty
    of the wilderness and how it would be nice to preserve it simply
    because of that - and it worked fine, to a certain extent. The value
    that we can today see in the wilderness, though, is of an entirely
    different order of magnitude. Living things can teach us all that we
    ever wanted to know about subjects ranging from nanotech manipulation
    of single atoms and molecules, up to the high level behavior in
    non-linear and/or chaotic systems, with all the intermediate stages.
    This is recognised in a few fields of science, but not at all in the
    population at large.
    I postulate that by analogy, cultures may be similar in the sense that
    today we simply don't know enough to be able to appreciate their worth.
    They are result of processes of adaptation, variation, selection, etc.
    - and have some unique solutions to a wide range of problems.

    > I don't see much loss in subsistence living, mythico-religious
    > social systems, or a range of practices that some peoples follow, and
    > I
    > wouldn't want to perpetuate some people having to live like that so
    > that
    > others can enjoy the benefits, even if, or rather especially if, some
    > of
    > those people are merely external observers (like western
    > anthropologists enjoying the pacific sun).
    > Vincent

    First, just because you don't see much loss in subsistence living etc,
    that does not mean at all that there actually *isn't* a loss.
    Second, ask any anthropologist why do tribal people (having a
    subsistence life) so rarely abandon it, even under extreme pressure
    from outside? Seriosuly, ask that - it might enlighten you a bit about
    our own way of life.
    Third, in order to preserve those cultures, the only thing that you
    have to do is to leave them alone. Don't go in there and cut their
    forest down. Don't go in and force them to become farmers or something
    else that is "productive". Don't make them work in Nike factores. Just
    don't meddle in their affairs with your "civilized" and "enlightened"
    approach at all.

    There are very few men - and they are exceptions - who are able to think and feel beyond the present moment.

    Carl von Clausewitz

    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness

    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 01 2002 - 20:14:44 BST