From: Jacques Du Pasquier (jacques@dtext.com)
Date: Wed Apr 03 2002 - 14:53:25 MST
Mike Lorrey wrote (3.4.2002/13:13) :
> On the contrary, since its agriculture that causes 90% of the
> environmental damage, come up with a technological solution (like
> photosynthetic/photovoltaic human skin) and there won't be a need for
> it, we can all go back to a hunter gatherer lifestyle to obtain our
> protein and vitamins, leaving most of our caloric needs to our skin's
> ability to catch rays.
In the terms of my original message about disadaptation, that's a
theoretical alternative: redirect cultural progress to readapt
ourselves, without changing ourselves, but by changing our environment
back to a simili-ancestral environment, though augmented by
technology. Not very likely, but still a possibility.
The problem I see (apart from the fact that many external problems
could prevent anyone to do this) is that the conjunction of our
unchanged desires and of the availability of technology will keep
pushing us to exit this lifestyle at many occasions. Say, we will be
lazy(1), and we will want a nice cozy home to read books and play with
the computer instead of chasing the beasts in the mud -- something we
may be designed to do, but that we also HAD TO do in the ancestral
environment. Just knowing that this is the environment we are made for
won't be enough to keep us there in the long run, even with a life
made better by technology -- so the disadaptation process will
reoccur.
On the other hand if we DO change ourselves (which your flavor of
technology seems to suggest), then I don't see why we would want to go
back to hunting-gathering, except as one of many possible lifestyles.
(1) Do you practice the sport that you intended to practice by the
way? (just a friendly reminder, that I'm sending to myself at the same
time, please don't take offence)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:13 MST