=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
God V Science (again)
Log In to post a reply
63 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Sep 17, 2008, 16:45
Re: God V Science (again)
Sep 17, 2008, 16:44
nigelswift wrote:
Yes, I accept the rapped knuckles, "always throws up nasty bastards as winners" was too simplistic, though a hell of a good line ;)

It is a good line. I wouldn't have bothered objecting to it if it hadn't been so catchy ;)

nigelswift wrote:
On the other hand, your own line "evolution has many many facets" suggests that social co-operation isn't the only way it operates either. There are plenty of species that have lasted for aeons on the basis of solitary existences.

Evolution does indeed have many facets, and there are clearly plenty of examples where "social co-operation" has proven less successful in some senses or from certain perspectives, than aggressive competition. But if -- as I suggested earlier -- Bateson's model of ecological systems is accurate, as I believe it to be, then the whole notion of a species living "a solitary existence" is called into question. If the unit of survival -- in evolutionary terms -- is "organism in environment" then we need to reassess a huge amount of our thinking on this issue

Bateson is, in my opinion, the single most important writer on the subject of ecology and sustainability, though very few people have read him... in part because he's quite a 'difficult' writer, but also because he tackles the subject from so many unexpected angles that it's often hard to know exactly what he's writing about.

His theory of "mind" for example (which is at the heart of the thesis I'm soon to submit) is radically different to almost any that came before it. One person has suggested that Bateson's "ecology of mind" may well be the single most subversive idea in the last 100 years.

Perhaps the most important thing to take from that theory is the notion that it is literally impossible to draw a line between "individual" and "species", between "individual" and "environment" or between "species" and "environment. And while such distinctions are useful for many many reasons, they are ultimately an illusion.

So when I talk of co-operative ecosystems, I'm not restricting myself to talk of "social co-operation". In fact, a co-operative ecosystem may well contains a number of competitive aspects. My point is simply that to speak of evolution as a species Vs species process which will throw up a nasty bastard as a winner (or even a compassionate co-operator as a winner)... or to see it as an individual trait Vs individual trait process within a single species that will throw up "nastiness" (or co-operation) as the winner, is to see less than half the picture.
In reply to:
Re: God V Science (again) (nigelswift)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index