On 09/06/2023 12:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:13:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2023 09:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:

>>> These are all consequences of the fact that sex evolved from the
>>> biological requirements. If we were all hermaphrodites it's difficult
>>> to see why a culture of two fundamentally different sorts of people
>>> with all the attitudes and behaviours that we now associate with
>>> 'gender' would ever have evolved.
>>
>> Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we
>> have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.
>> Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is
>> rather boring.
>
> Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
> bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
>
> If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
> different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
> aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.

I think that binary fission is a really good idea. No need for child
rearing, which parthenogenesis still requires.

--
Max Demian

In message <b3071060-e89c-1d2a-2574-a67980575f2f@outlook.com> at Fri, 9
Jun 2023 16:28:06, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> writes
[]
>A girlfriend's explanation was "increases the men'll undo them rather
>than rip them off" :)
>
That reminds me: Liz, have your newly-accessible discussions clarified
why front-fastening undergarments are still very much the exception? Not
just for the convenience of out-of-control men, but I'd have thought
they'd be more convenient for women too - but they seem still to be very
much in the minority.
>
(I did once ask my mum, and she says it makes them think of maternity
garments - but surely that [a] can't still be the case [b] shouldn't be
negative anyway.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

In message <u5vmar$1v3au$4@dont-email.me> at Fri, 9 Jun 2023 18:08:42,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>On 09/06/2023 12:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:13:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
>> wrote:
[]
>>> Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we
>>> have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.

Birds do it, bees do it, even complicated fleas do it ... let's do it.

>>> Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is
>>> rather boring.

Though that of the limpet is quite surprising.

>> Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
>> bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
>> If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
>> different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
>> aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.

Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.
>
>I think that binary fission is a really good idea. No need for child
>rearing, which parthenogenesis still requires.
>
Or external wombs/gestation chambers. Something I continue to be
depressed how little research is given to: the anti-women's-rights folk
(sorry, anti-abortionists) may have something to do with that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on
politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 03:38:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>>> Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
>>> bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
>>> If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
>>> different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
>>> aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.
>
>Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
>feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.

The primary enterprise of all lifeforms is to make copies of
themselves, by whatever method they can. It's built into everything
that lives. It may express itself to different extents in different
individual lifeforms, or it may be misdirected in some way, or it may
not always succeed, but it's the most fundamental bit of biological
programming that there can be, and everything alive today is the
result of it. A successful copy must also include a copy of the
instruction to make a copy, otherwise nothing would survive more than
one further generation. Anything that didn't follow the program to
completion, for whatever reason, is not represented here today because
it made no copies and therefore had no descendants. You may think some
people don't have 'the urge' but the pattern for it is built into
eveything alive, and the success of the program does indeed vary, but
that is exactly how natural selection works, and there would be no
life at all today without it.

Rod.

On 10/06/2023 03:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <u5vmar$1v3au$4@dont-email.me> at Fri, 9 Jun 2023 18:08:42,
> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>> On 09/06/2023 12:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:13:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
>>> wrote:
> []
>>>> Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we
>>>> have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.
>
> Birds do it, bees do it, even complicated fleas do it ... let's do it.

Actually it's "educated" fleas for some reason. The point is, none of
them use hermaphroditism; the problem is getting your bits in the right
position if you want to do it simultaneously. Which I would have thought
would be preferable.

>>>> Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is
>>>> rather boring.
>
> Though that of the limpet is quite surprising.

I don't know how limpets "do it", but male barnacles have a penis
several times the length of their bodies; but that's the problem if you
live stuck to a rock.

>>>  Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
>>> bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
>>>  If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
>>> different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
>>> aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.
>
> Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
> feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.
>>
>> I think that binary fission is a really good idea. No need for child
>> rearing, which parthenogenesis still requires.
>>
> Or external wombs/gestation chambers. Something I continue to be
> depressed how little research is given to: the anti-women's-rights folk
> (sorry, anti-abortionists) may have something to do with that.

Why make life more complicated?

--
Max Demian

In message <upa88i9rtvh0os338ou6de2enll1d8m669@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Jun
2023 09:12:59, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 03:38:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
>>>> bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
>>>> If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
>>>> different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
>>>> aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.
>>
>>Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
>>feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.
>
>The primary enterprise of all lifeforms is to make copies of
>themselves, by whatever method they can. It's built into everything

I could say that a lot of civilisation involves overcoming primal urges,
but I won't go directly there (as I sense I'd not get anywhere with
you): I will say instead that in a small - but arguably very important -
proportion, the urge to make copies comes out as doing things for the
benefit of the hive/species/whatever, rather than personal copies. I was
thinking mainly of inventors and the like, but it occurs to me that it
also covers those who go off to war (including those who have _not_ done
any fathering before they go).

>that lives. It may express itself to different extents in different
>individual lifeforms, or it may be misdirected in some way, or it may

(As for "misdirected", see above.)

>not always succeed, but it's the most fundamental bit of biological
>programming that there can be, and everything alive today is the
>result of it. A successful copy must also include a copy of the
>instruction to make a copy, otherwise nothing would survive more than
>one further generation. Anything that didn't follow the program to

Unless it helps the rest of the species.

>completion, for whatever reason, is not represented here today because
>it made no copies and therefore had no descendants. You may think some
>people don't have 'the urge' but the pattern for it is built into
>eveything alive, and the success of the program does indeed vary, but
>that is exactly how natural selection works, and there would be no
>life at all today without it.
>
>Rod.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I believe we made up god just to have someone to blame for our
mistakes - "Sarah Sidle" (Jorja Fox), CSI

In message <u61i6o$296l9$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:10:31,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>On 10/06/2023 03:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <u5vmar$1v3au$4@dont-email.me> at Fri, 9 Jun 2023
>>18:08:42, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>>> On 09/06/2023 12:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:13:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
>>>> wrote:
>> []
>>>>> Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we
>>>>> have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.
>> Birds do it, bees do it, even complicated fleas do it ... let's do
>>it.
>
>Actually it's "educated" fleas for some reason. The point is, none of

I felt I'd got the line wrong.

>them use hermaphroditism; the problem is getting your bits in the right

Yes, I thought that as I was typing - but I really only inserted the
reference as a bit of levity after you'd mentioned worms and snails,
since I find any reference to Mr. Coward's song adds a smile to my day.
(As does reference to Ms. Wood's one of a similar subtitle.)

>position if you want to do it simultaneously. Which I would have
>thought would be preferable.
>
>>>>> Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is
>>>>> rather boring.
>> Though that of the limpet is quite surprising.
>
>I don't know how limpets "do it", but male barnacles have a penis
>several times the length of their bodies; but that's the problem if you
>live stuck to a rock.

OK, that's the one I was thinking of. (Limpets may be similar.)
>
>>>>  Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
>>>> bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
>>>>  If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
>>>> different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
>>>> aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.
>> Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
>>feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.
>>>
>>> I think that binary fission is a really good idea. No need for child
>>>rearing, which parthenogenesis still requires.
>>>
>> Or external wombs/gestation chambers. Something I continue to be
>>depressed how little research is given to: the anti-women's-rights
>>folk (sorry, anti-abortionists) may have something to do with that.
>
>Why make life more complicated?
>
Why preserve the ancient mechanism that makes women suffer an increasing
incapacity for nine months? If the embryo could be transferred to such a
chamber at an early stage, just think how much more productive we could
be. (Not that pregnant women haven't contributed enormously to
progress.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?

On 10/06/2023 13:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <u61i6o$296l9$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:10:31,
> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes

>> I don't know how limpets "do it", but male barnacles have a penis
>> several times the length of their bodies; but that's the problem if
>> you live stuck to a rock.
>
> OK, that's the one I was thinking of. (Limpets may be similar.)

Limpets reproduce through a behavior known as **broadcast spawning**.
Several females release eggs and several males release sperm into the
water at the same time. This method increases the likelihood that eggs
will become successfully fertilized and that fertilized eggs will not be
eaten by nearshore egg predators¹. The Common Limpet spawns once a year
during winter months².

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 10/06/2023
(1) Common Limpet - Oceana. https://oceana.org/marine-life/common-limpet/.
(2) . https://bing.com/search?q=limpets+reproduction.
(3) Limpet - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpet.
(4) Frontiers | Methodologies for Patellid Limpets’ Aquaculture: From
..... https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.884262/full.
(5) Reproduction and larval development of the limpet Lottia persona
..... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1063074011030072.

--
Bing AI

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 17:26:12 +0100, Bing AI <bing_ai@example.com>
wrote:

>On 10/06/2023 13:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <u61i6o$296l9$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:10:31,
>> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>
>>> I don't know how limpets "do it", but male barnacles have a penis
>>> several times the length of their bodies; but that's the problem if
>>> you live stuck to a rock.
>>
>> OK, that's the one I was thinking of. (Limpets may be similar.)
>
>Limpets reproduce through a behavior known as **broadcast spawning**.
>Several females release eggs and several males release sperm into the
>water at the same time. This method increases the likelihood that eggs
>will become successfully fertilized and that fertilized eggs will not be
>eaten by nearshore egg predators¹. The Common Limpet spawns once a year
>during winter months².
>

And in the dark I think. Some pelagic fishes use the same method of
spawning.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 13:47:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>>The primary enterprise of all lifeforms is to make copies of
>>themselves, by whatever method they can. It's built into everything
>
>I could say that a lot of civilisation involves overcoming primal urges,
>but I won't go directly there (as I sense I'd not get anywhere with
>you): I will say instead that in a small - but arguably very important -
>proportion, the urge to make copies comes out as doing things for the
>benefit of the hive/species/whatever, rather than personal copies.

Darwin's theory on its own doesn't fully explain altruism, but this
was the insight of Professor Richard Dawkins as explained in his book
'The Selfish Gene'. He realised that lifeforms don't act in their own
individual interests, but in the interests of the genetic code that
created them.

Effectively he allowed the phrase "survival of the fittest" to prompt
the question "survival of the fittest what?" and the answer was not
survival of individual lifeforms as we had previously assumed.

Suddenly, the behaviour of creatures that will fight to the death to
support others makes perfect sense. If all members of an insect colony
have the same genetic code, it doesn't matter from the point of view
of preserving the code if a few individual creatures are lost. It's as
if the colony acts as a kind of super lifeform that does act in its
own self interest, being prepared to sacrifice parts of itself if this
becomes necessary to ensure its survival.

It makes you look again at altruism wherever it appears.

Rod.

In message <30f98itpns4ser4ac4mr8jl3o2eaaj9eob@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Jun
2023 19:21:12, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]
>Darwin's theory on its own doesn't fully explain altruism, but this
>Effectively he allowed the phrase "survival of the fittest" to prompt
>the question "survival of the fittest what?" and the answer was not
>survival of individual lifeforms as we had previously assumed.

Of course, when Darwin used the word "fittest", he did NOT mean fit in
its modern use (as in what you can do at the gym); he meant "most
suited", best _fitted_ to each specific environment. Definitely not the
biggest and/or strongest: there are many situations where those are a
_dis_advantage evolutionarily.
>
>Suddenly, the behaviour of creatures that will fight to the death to
>support others makes perfect sense. If all members of an insect colony
>have the same genetic code, it doesn't matter from the point of view
>of preserving the code if a few individual creatures are lost. It's as
>if the colony acts as a kind of super lifeform that does act in its
>own self interest, being prepared to sacrifice parts of itself if this
>becomes necessary to ensure its survival.

Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best
thought of as an overall single organism.

Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th century
- I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in some oriental
societies than in some western ones.
>
>It makes you look again at altruism wherever it appears.
>
>Rod.
Indeed.

Vaguely getting back on-topic, at least to some engineering, some hive
situations with clouds of drones - or nanobots, if those ever escape
from the realms of science fiction - may need to include altruism.
(Probably only will be relevant once replication is real.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Beatrix Potter was a bunny boiler.
- Patricia Routledge, on "Today" 2016-1-26

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 01:52:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best
>thought of as an overall single organism.
>
>Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th century
>- I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in some oriental
>societies than in some western ones.

Yes, if you can brainwash individuals from birth you may be able to
subvert some of their natural instincts, such as the instinct for self
preservation. They may be persuaded to sacrifice their own interests
in favour of those of their glorious leader Kim No Fun if they have
been 'educated' to regard him as more important than themselves.

It's scary.

>Vaguely getting back on-topic, at least to some engineering, some hive
>situations with clouds of drones - or nanobots, if those ever escape
>from the realms of science fiction - may need to include altruism.
>(Probably only will be relevant once replication is real.)

They will all act in accordance with Azimov's Third Law from the very
start. In fact, we might suggest a Fourth Law, as follows-

4. "A robot must sacrifice itself if required to do so".

This would particularly apply to battle robots. In fact, we already
have sacrificial or 'kamikaze' drones whose sole function is to carry
bombs to their targets, after which their missions are over, as it
wouldn't be worth the trouble and expense to bring them back.

It's scary.

Then there are the extra capabilities that robots can have by
networking them together, or controlling them centrally. We currently
do this sort of thing with lots of little drones with coloured lights
in lieu of firework displays, but if a thing can be used for evil,
it's only a matter of time before somebody does it. A particularly
chilling fictional example of how this might be done is an episode of
'Black Mirror' about a robot dog. (The episode is called 'Metalhead'
if you want to look it up). Not a single piece of technology depicted
here would require the invention of anything we don't already have. We
already have robot dogs. We already have guns. We already have radio.
We already have networking. We already have tracking devices - in the
drama depicted as lots of tiny objects embedded in the target by means
of an explosive that is thrown into the air and detonates a few feet
from the ground. We already have explosive devices that can be thrown
ito the air and detonate a few feet from the ground. Worst of all, we
almost certainly already have people with the will to put all this
together without realising or caring about the possible consequences.

It's even more scary.

Rod.

In message <ggua8ilujics8ss8t8qlhuubk2b3mh3k7u@4ax.com> at Sun, 11 Jun
2023 09:14:32, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
>On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 01:52:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best
>>thought of as an overall single organism.
>>
>>Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th century
>>- I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in some oriental
>>societies than in some western ones.
>
>Yes, if you can brainwash individuals from birth you may be able to
>subvert some of their natural instincts, such as the instinct for self
>preservation. They may be persuaded to sacrifice their own interests
>in favour of those of their glorious leader Kim No Fun if they have
>been 'educated' to regard him as more important than themselves.

(I like the name!) I wasn't thinking so much of that particular state -
more Singapore and Japan, where (certainly a lot of) people seem better
behaved.
>
>It's scary.

North Korea, and to some extent China, I'm not clear - and have no way
of finding out - whether it's a matter of hive mind, or just
suppression. There are many states and societies where people
individually _do_ want to look after their own affairs more but can't
because of the way the society is run (which is not always for the
benefit of society, often just a ruling elite or even individual). [I'm
somewhat concerned that laws _here_ - in the UK, not sure about USA -
are being passed that are excessively suppressive.]
>
>>Vaguely getting back on-topic, at least to some engineering, some hive
>>situations with clouds of drones - or nanobots, if those ever escape
>>from the realms of science fiction - may need to include altruism.
>>(Probably only will be relevant once replication is real.)
>
>They will all act in accordance with Azimov's Third Law from the very
>start. In fact, we might suggest a Fourth Law, as follows-
>
>4. "A robot must sacrifice itself if required to do so".

I think that's already inherent in laws 0-3. (The good doctor's name is
spelt with an s, by the way, not a z.)
>
>This would particularly apply to battle robots. In fact, we already
>have sacrificial or 'kamikaze' drones whose sole function is to carry
>bombs to their targets, after which their missions are over, as it
>wouldn't be worth the trouble and expense to bring them back.

So far, most drones are controlled by a human, rather than having
autonomy. We've had such for some time - the old cruise missiles are
probably more autonomous than what are in effect "guided munitions" (as
seen to great extent in the gulf wars).
>
>It's scary.
>
>Then there are the extra capabilities that robots can have by
>networking them together, or controlling them centrally. We currently
>do this sort of thing with lots of little drones with coloured lights

Yes, and they're very impressive.

>in lieu of firework displays, but if a thing can be used for evil,
>it's only a matter of time before somebody does it. A particularly

As Tim Berner's-Lee put it (I may not have the words exactly right): you
can't invent a piece of paper on which only good things can be written;
you can put an engine in an ambulance or a tank.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I don't like activity holidays. I like /inactivity/ holidays.
- Miriam Margolyes, RT 2017/4/15-21

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 10:28:25 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>>They will all act in accordance with Azimov's Third Law from the very
>>start. In fact, we might suggest a Fourth Law, as follows-
>>
>>4. "A robot must sacrifice itself if required to do so".
>
>I think that's already inherent in laws 0-3. (The good doctor's name is
>spelt with an s, by the way, not a z.)

Of course it is. I should have checked my bookshelf.

Rod.

On 11/06/2023 01:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <30f98itpns4ser4ac4mr8jl3o2eaaj9eob@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Jun
> 2023 19:21:12, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
> []
>> Darwin's theory on its own doesn't fully explain altruism, but this
>> Effectively he allowed the phrase "survival of the fittest" to prompt
>> the question "survival of the fittest what?" and the answer was not
>> survival of individual lifeforms as we had previously assumed.
>
> Of course, when Darwin used the word "fittest", he did NOT mean fit in
> its modern use (as in what you can do at the gym); he meant "most
> suited", best _fitted_ to each specific  environment. Definitely not the
> biggest and/or strongest: there are many situations where those are a
> _dis_advantage evolutionarily.

The phrase "Survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer; I'm
not sure Darwin used the term. Actually it's a bit of a tautology, as
"fit" means able to survive.

I'm not "refuting Darwin" as c19 clerics boasted, it's just that the
phrase "only the fittest shall survive" doesn't properly describe
natural selection.

>> Suddenly, the behaviour of creatures that will fight to the death to
>> support others makes perfect sense. If all members of an insect colony
>> have the same genetic code, it doesn't matter from the point of view
>> of preserving the code if a few individual creatures are lost. It's as
>> if the colony acts as a kind of super lifeform that does act in its
>> own self interest, being prepared to sacrifice parts of itself if this
>> becomes necessary to ensure its survival.
>
> Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best
> thought of as an overall single organism.
>
> Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th century
> - I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in some oriental
> societies than in some western ones.

It stops working when people become self conscious individuals.

--
Max Demian

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]
> Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best
> thought of as an overall single organism.

Humas are thought of as a single organism but we are actually a
collectio of organisms. Without gut bacteria and, much more
primitively, cell components subsumed from simpler organisms, we would
not be able to function.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 11/06/2023 10:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> So far, most drones are controlled by a human, rather than having
> autonomy. We've had such for some time - the old cruise missiles are
> probably more autonomous than what are in effect "guided munitions" (as
> seen to great extent in the gulf wars).

Loitering munitions are closer, they look for a particular type of
target then destroy it.

In message <1qc5v0p.bwwku3muhhc6N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Sun, 11 Jun 2023 12:39:48, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best
>> thought of as an overall single organism.
>
>Humas are thought of as a single organism but we are actually a
>collectio of organisms. Without gut bacteria and, much more
>primitively, cell components subsumed from simpler organisms, we would
>not be able to function.
>
Yes, but we're in control - the bacteria are "along for the ride",
though we actually need them. An insect colony/hive is much more a
collection.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea
that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing
things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

In message <u647nb$2m0hq$3@dont-email.me> at Sun, 11 Jun 2023 11:30:03,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>On 11/06/2023 01:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[]
>> Of course, when Darwin used the word "fittest", he did NOT mean fit
>>in its modern use (as in what you can do at the gym); he meant "most
>>suited", best _fitted_ to each specific  environment. Definitely not
>>the biggest and/or strongest: there are many situations where those
>>are a _dis_advantage evolutionarily.
>
>The phrase "Survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer; I'm

I didn't know that.

>not sure Darwin used the term. Actually it's a bit of a tautology, as
>"fit" means able to survive.

Not as Darwin (or Spencer) used it. He meant "most suited". Those less
suited can still survive, just not as well. Though in the long run, see
next point.
>
>I'm not "refuting Darwin" as c19 clerics boasted, it's just that the
>phrase "only the fittest shall survive" doesn't properly describe
>natural selection.

Long-term, it describes the idea.
[]
>> Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th
>>century - I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in
>>some oriental societies than in some western ones.
>
>It stops working when people become self conscious individuals.
>
No - see altruism.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea
that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing
things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

On 11/06/2023 22:16, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <u647nb$2m0hq$3@dont-email.me> at Sun, 11 Jun 2023 11:30:03,
> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
>> On 11/06/2023 01:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>>>  Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th
>>> century  - I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in
>>> some oriental  societies than in some western ones.
>>
>> It stops working when people become self conscious individuals.
>>
> No - see altruism.

If altruism comes from an evolved trait intended to benefit the group
rather than the individual, as soon as people start to think of
themselves as individuals they may reject the altruistic impulse as
irrelevant to themselves, while still feeling that it has some meaning
due to their inheritance.

--
Max Demian