We'll never know.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Kramer, William R CTR NAVFAC PAC wrote:
> If we become "one with the universe," will we need mutual help from
> others, or would our etherial condition be far beyond needing others for
> reciprocal support?
> Wm.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Dator [mailto:dator@...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:44
> To: Kramer, William R CTR NAVFAC PAC
> Cc: tbhawaiiowan@...; hrcfs-l@...
> Subject: RE: Dawkins: Evol future of altruism and "mutational" genetic
> engineering?
>
> Or will we become more ant-like in our behavior as the internet morphs
> into Chardin's "Noosphere", our carbon bodies melt away, and we truly
> become one with the universe?
>
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Kramer, William R CTR NAVFAC PAC wrote:
>
> > Altruism is exhibited by many species other than humans (e.g., social
> > insects, like ants), so its genetic basis is not disputed. Especially
> > in humans, there are environmental factors at play, and most cultural
> > traditions encourage altruism. In that altruism in humans very
> > directly contributes to our survival, I would think it's here to
> > stay......at least until our mutual assistance is no longer required
> for survival.
> > Altruism contributes to the survival of an infant or family member,
> > but what about in a future condition where mutual human help is
> irrelevant?
> > Will altruism fade away with the appendix and wisdom teeth?
> >
> > Wm.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-hrcfs-l@... [mailto:owner-hrcfs-l@...] On
> > Behalf Of tbhawaiiowan@...
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 15:00
> > To: hrcfs-l@...
> > Subject: Dawkins: Evol future of altruism and "mutational" genetic
> > engineering?
> >
> > These thought belatedly occurred to me after first email below. I
> > believe Dawkins did say in response to an aud question that if
> > altruistic behavior is partly genetic that he thinks ag, indus, and
> > post-indus societies all still too new relative to humanity's much
> > longer history as hunter-gatherers to have been bred out of us by
> > evolution--yet.
> >
> > He also said--in a way I hadn't heard before--that he believes we are
> > just at the beginning of human ability to manipulate "mutational"
> > changes via genetic engineering. I think he meant to contrast this
> > all past and most present selective breeding/genetic engineering,
> > which he must regard as "non-mutational" in nature.
> >
> > If anyone understands this distinction better than I do, please
> > explain if u have time and interest.
> >
> > aloha,
> >
> > TB
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tbhawaiiowan@...
> > To: irohter@...; william.r.kramer.ctr@...;
> > hrcfs-l@...
> > Cc: HOONANEA@...; Aabaer@...; louiserteschik@...
> > Sent: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard Dawkins: what is most novel? controversial? about
>
> > his thinking on evolution?
> >
> >
> > I attended his Tues nite Feb 20 speech. I also readily admit I have
> > only read things written about him, not by him. But with all due
> > respect, I did not hear anything I found truly novel or controversial
> > (other than his making jokes about those who doubt evolution).
> >
> > I wanted to ask him questions such as these:
> >
> > -r u first to postulate that altruistic behavior may be genetically
> > determined at least in part?
> > - do u think invention of agriculture worst mistake in human history?
> > -to what extent do u think humans chose to domesticate plants and
> > animals vs being forced to do so due to pop growth resulting from
> > their very success at H+G (which, on a planet the size of Earth, made
> > it impossible to cont H+G instead of "inventingt" agri in the absence
> > of future birth control
> > - do u think most humans would still be hunter-gatherers if Earth as
> > big as, say, Jupiter?
> > - his thoughts on possible evolutionary explanations for human desire
> > and ability to invent gods and religions and ability to
> > contemplate/question where we came from and why we exist
> >
> > He did seem to agree (with most futurists?) that humans (and "life" in
> > general) could evolve from carbon-based to partly or fully silicon
> > based in future, and that human brain may still be capable of evolving
>
> > beyond our current "middle earth" perception of reality (to include
> > better understanding/perception of both subatomic and astronomic
> phenomena?).
> > I think this possibility supported by recent brain research on
> > "neuroplasticity" suggesting brain is not as hard-wired as previously
> > thought--at least in minds of most scientists.
> >
> > Finally, also wanted to ask him if he thinks humans could evolve who
> > could photosynthesize their own food simply by natural selection
> > without aid of selective breeding/genetic engineering.
> >
> > Also interested in thoughts of others re what is most
> > novel/provocative about Dawkins' thinking.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > TB
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > Check out the new AOL
> > <http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?re
> > di r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaol%2Ecom%2Fnewaol> . Most comprehensive set
> > of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of
> > high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
> >
>