I wrote
"But, the fewer the genes the easier monster production will be, donīt you
think so?"
I appreciate replies from Jeff Davis and Eugene.Leitl, particularly
"transrodent conspiracy" new concept. I think philosophy is the new concepts
creation. Not so bad, Jeff.
Possibly, if genes are fewer, it means greater body codification by each one.
It makes difficult to predict how this complex network of interactions with
react. Hazard has lead evolution, how we will stop it?
On the other hand, is this dreamed evolution for all people, or do we have to
consider more than one human specie, as when we share with Neanderthals, and
possibly help to their extintion?
Or it is been considered from now on?: "What is it that societies as disparate
as those we find in Colombia, Nigeria and Burma have in common that has held
them back from the benefits of real modernism? Why have attempts to aid
development in these countries proved so ineffective for so long? "
What real modernism is? Do you really know what US aids here in Colombia is
for?
Any serious commentary, gentlemen?
PD: I am preparing a draft paper on actual trends in evolution, and like to
consider points like these:
- A hundred years from Mendelīs work revisited by de Vries and others and the
completion of the human genome sequence, is not a good prospect.
- Some sudamerican tribe demands for his blood taked by genome projectīs
people. Like this Argentinean who, at divorce time, asked for the kidney he
gave to his wife.
- Projects as robotsīscreen saver may apart us from their reproduction
process
- Biological viruses has functions: to find a host, to alter information
status, to replicate. Program viruses are the same. When we will have an
interfase with them?
- When a pilot seats in front a flight simulator, who is learning at all?
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:40 MDT