Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA06209 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 9 May 2002 22:09:56 +0100 Message-ID: <002801c1f79c$196e4360$5e2ffea9@oemcomputer> From: "Philip Jonkers" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> Subject: Fw: Saving the ethnosphere Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 13:57:13 -0700 Organization: Prodigy Internet Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Jonkers" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Saving the ethnosphere
> > > Only if the natives are found to be ill-adapted to their new cultural
> > > environments.
> > > For instance, IIRC many `idians' became addicted to alcohol and
> > > killed
> > > eachother
> > > off more with the new weapons (guns) they were handed from the white
> > > settlers.
> > > In that sense, yes it is quite terrible but other than that it's
> > > mostly
> > > sentiment
> > > (no offense). If the natives on the other hand gained from the new
> > > culture,
> > > I don't
> > > see any real reason why it is terrible.
> > Again, I don't think my explanation was clear enough. I have no
> > problem with cultures changing or disappearing through time. I have a
> > huge problem when there is a *massive* destruction of cultures. Let me
> > use an analogy: if an occasional person in a society dies, some people
> > are affected by it, but the society in general continues on without
> > much effect being visible. If suddenly half of the persons living in
> > that society die out, because of the work of a few other individuals in
> > that society, then we have a problem, right? And the society is quite
> > different afterwards, and probably less robust and capable.
> > This is the problem I see happening right now.
> From an ethical point of view it's indeed hard to accept that a lot of
> perish through the work of a few. From an evolutionary perspective (and
> what this mailing-list is all about) however this need not be per se.
> evolutionary condition that society improves (=better adaptation to
> circumstances) after half of its population is destroyed it may be
> fortuitous. Perhaps half of the
> population was infected by some insane and dangerous thought-system (e.g.
> that was potentially dangerous to society. I know this does not apply to
> you hinted at and it may sound crazy, bordering to eugenic sentiments and
> all that
> but bear with me that human ethics and evolution often clash
> (we keep our sick alive and allow the weak to prosper). Nature, being red
> and claw, doesn't respect human rights only humans (ideally) do. I find it
> difficult to reflect on humanity when wearing evolutionary
> glasses without running into conflict with ethics. I do not mean
> to offend you or anybody (I love humans as much as the next guy).
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 : Thu May 09 2002 - 22:21:56 BST