[extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution?

[Pete Bertine]

> I think you may be a little over concerned Pete. Part of what you are
> seeing
> is a simple matter of specialization. It may have made sense for a person
> 100 years ago to understand how the inside of their automobile worked
> since
> they could likely be stuck on the road and need to fix it. The same
> concepts
> that were in that auto were also contained in the factory machinery at the
> guy's job and the farm equipment in the field. They were very basic and
> didn't require any special knowledge.
> 
[PB] 
Ah, the good old days when things were simple.  I wish we knew what the
ratio of non-neurotic people to neurotic people was 100 years ago v. today.
There were probably far less rational numbers of folks then though. Still
they were isolated idiots and it was much harder to organize groups of
morons.  And the idiots were bombarded by far simpler and much more *quaint*
media manipulation.  Today it is a bit different...

> Today it is a bit different. A computer tech has enough trouble keeping up
> with the latest technology in computers, the latest security threats,
> hardware, etc to keep them busy 24/7. They do not have the luxury or the
> need for the knowledge of how a car works. Even if they did, they probably
> could not fix the car on the way to the office due to the special tools
> and
> parts needed to do the job. They pick up the cell phone and call a person
> specialized in car repair.......And this person probably hasn't a clue how
> the cell phone that made the call works, but his specialized knowledge in
> repairing cars makes him no less important to the overall knowledge of the
> Human species.
[PB] 
Yes but the question is, "Are these overspecialized individuals less human
than the people 100 years ago.  The ponzi schemes of a last century still
work with little variation, only now the scope is global and the $ figures
in the billions.  The popular delusions and madness of crowds hasn't changed
a bit.  Have we as a species gotten smarter, wiser more rational, do we
question more what we see hear and read? No. I say as a whole, our species
has lost touch, dumbed down, prefer Visa to Mastercard, think Coke is better
than Pepsi.  Only an elite few, the numbers may be growing, have critical
thinking skills but the gulf between the thinking and the sleeping is
growing wider every day.  Just a hunch on my part.  I can't point to the
data yet.  I'll get a team of coeds on it immediately.

> 
> Of  course you have your multi-talented pointy-head types (like most of
> the
> people here) who have a great interest in nearly everything. But I doubt
> that our numbers are decreasing. I also doubt that anyone here who knows
> how
> a cell phone works also knows each of the specific manufacturing processes
> that went into it, the processes that were used to gather the raw
> materials,
> an understaing of the infrastructure that brought all the parts into the
> plant to be made, the knowledge to work the machines as the phones are
> made
> in the line, and the various retail strategies that went into the sale of
> the phone and got it into the customer's hand. There may be a broad
> overview, but that's not enough to get the job done. There are people who
> are specialized all  the way through the process that make that phone
> happen
> and without them, your dark ages would come to pass.


[PB] 
The most important people are the ones who can creatively manage the
specialized  and they are getting harder and harder to find, they don't want
to be a part of "it" any more. It is these effective and creative managers
who are being marginalized more and more...  again, no Harvard study to
prove my point, just direct experience with how the souls of companies are
crushed as they are thrown to the wolves of Wall Street, sucked up by global
conglomerates and devoured by the P&L of the quarterly report.
 
> 
> As for "Lost", it's very inconsistent but I find it entertaining
> nonetheless. It's nice to take a break from reality and suspend disbelief
> sometimes. 
[PB] My point is that smart folks think Jumbo Jets can disappear.

I also enjoyed the WIzard of Oz and I have no belief that the
> story line there is based in reality either. Some things are fun just
> because they are nuts - take Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. My advice is
> to lighte up just a bit and try to enjoy the marathon with t he
> specialized
> people around you. :-)
> 
[PB] 

Douglas Adams was brilliant, his work was ironic, complex and he created
elaborate social systems and physical realities that he worked within.  He
created a universe within which there were rules for how his hyper reality
drive worked and his machine worked according to those rules.  He created
intricate thematic structures the way William Gibson and Arthur C. Clarke
have.

Lost is "nuts" and to mention it's sophomoric brain soothing power in the
same paragraph as Hitchhiker has poor Douglas spinning in his grave.

As for lightening up, I can out quote you line for line regarding Caddy
Shack, Road Warrior or Wedding Crashers any day of the week.  Plus, coeds
still find me adorable and several have offered to have my children.
Strippers give me lap dances for free. And a "marathon of specialized
people" sounds like an aimless herd of sheep running for a cliff.

Though I refuse to fiddle too much while Rome burns, I invite you anytime to
NYC for a www.svn.org event where the wine flows free and the women are
young and pretty.


pete

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Bertine" <pkbertine at hotmail.com>
> To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution?
> 
> 
> > Amara:
> >
> > Very insightful!  Thank you for referring me back to the archive. I
> speak
> > for all my Huguenot ancestors, "Catholics are behaving much more
> civilized
> > these days."
> >
> > I do not come from an academic background.  I raise money.  I have the
> > uncanny ability to latch on to trends that will become popular 7 years
> in
> > the future.  I've done it with Netscape, finepoint.com and, now, Prefab
> > Contemporary Architecture/Alternative energy.  I seem to have a special
> meme
> > gene that has made me sensitive to new trends.
> >
> > I have an extensive background in Advertising. And being successful at
> > raising money quickly, I know how to clobber people properly until they
> open
> > their wallets.
> >
> > I have carefully read your argument and the article you referred me to
> and
> I
> > must disagree.
> >
> > Forget unfriendly AI, asteroid strikes, the Greenhouse Effect, or Pigeon
> > Flue... The world is in danger of sliding into another Dark Ages, from
> which
> > we will not be able to regain the heights of our current culture.
> >
> > The ignorance of today's "educated" person is staggering. I frequently
> ask
> > people how they think cell phones work.  A frequent reply (other than
> who
> > cares) is that they "talk to satellites." A person in the middle of a
> > concrete building thinks their phone goes straight to a satellite,
> bounces
> > off it and "talks" to their friend's phone in the same room or around
> the
> > world.
> >
> > Try it.  Ask the cell phone question. Make up your own questions. Then
> go
> > out and play Socrates for a few minutes every day. My point:  Up until a
> > very short time ago people could see and touch the technology around
> them.
> > This is a very elementary point, no doubt brought up many times before
> on
> > the list.  But what has it led to?
> >
> > 1) Super powerful cults that use the media and legal system to spread
> > pseudoscience and clone idiots, such as the Raelians.
> > http://www.clonaid.com/news.php
> > http://www.watchman.org/profile/raelianpro.htm
> > http://skepdic.com/raelian.html
> >
> > My first post on this list was an attempt to dissuade Robert Bradbury
> from
> > interacting with a Raelian.  Robert has a great sense of humor, but I'm
> not
> > sure he knew what he was dealing with unless he wanted to get invited to
> a
> > Raelian orgy.
> >
> > 2) Detached and annoyed, intelligent and highly rational, "Sane" people
> who
> > are marginalized from mainstream society.  When I was recently invited
> to
> > join a "Lost" DVD marathon and pointed out that the fat guy hasn't
> "Lost"
> > any weight over the episodes, no one laughed.  When I mentioned that
> > "Gilligan's Island" was based on a far more plausible concept and was at
> > least funny, people got mad and paused the DVD. "You're comparing "Lost"
> to
> > "Gillian's Island?" it was demanded of me.  "Why yes, isn't it obvious?"
> > "Lost is *real* it could actually happen," came the reply from a high
> level
> > advertising director.  I won't go on.  Very smart people in New York
> City
> > think that a Jumbo Jet could go down somewhere in the world and not be
> found
> > within 24 hours.
> >
> > 3) I'm not going to list more "evidence" of the evaporation of
> skepticism
> > and the death of reason.  My final point is that, much as I hate her,
> Ayn
> > Rand wrote one decent book called Anthem (she should have stopped
> there).
> > It's Science fiction really and makes the point that the idiots take
> over
> > and the world returns to a candle lit society.  The idiots are taking
> over.
> > They control the media and they make the powerful memes.
> >
> > I suggest that science fight back with the same media that the idiots
> are
> > using.  Shows like Myth Busters are the grain around which a well
> organized
> > "pearl" of professional PR driven media mediums need to be produced.
> There
> > are powerful celebrities and very rich people who will support this
> effort.
> > It is not philanthropy; it can be very profitable battling entropy.
> >
> > Amara, you wrote: I don't like aggressive approaches. Hammering people
> over
> > their head with one's insistence is not usually very effective either.
> >
> > People are being hammered with nonsense; let us intelligently and
> > strategically inject them with reason.
> >
> > Pete
> > www.petebertine.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> > > bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Amara Graps
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 5:40 PM
> > > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > Subject: [extropy-chat] Re Fight for Evolution?
> > >
> > > Pete Bertine:
> > > >If the pope is now pro-evolution (doubt it, it's a papal trick
> > >
> > > I don't think you were on the list in November when we discussed it:
> > >
> > >
> http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2005-November/022526.html
> > >
> > > I don't doubt it, mostly because I asked my Vatican astronomer friend
> > > when I visited the Vatican Observatory last November. He knows it from
> > > the source, so I can't do any better about factual references.
> > >
> > > The Pope's argument against ID is subtle, and, is useful to
> > > understand:
> > >
> > > http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=17691
> > >
> > > >Seriously, what if leading Transhumanists penned a one pager and
> tried
> to
> > > >get it into the press with a challenge to school teachers to
> incorporate
> > > it
> > > >into their curriculum?
> > >
> > > _One_ pager ?
> > >
> > > >  Or if an exciting debate between "The body freezers"
> > > >v. "The Creationists" were waged online (Discovery Channel special?)
> with
> > > a
> > > >hard line taken for evolution, if it was entertaining, if walking
> fish
> > > were
> > > >blown up or driven over by Spike on an Orange County chopper, then
> people
> > > >might wake up.
> > >
> > > I don't like aggressive approaches. Hammering people over their head
> > > with one's insistence is not usually very effective either.
> > >
> > > >Lets face it, Creationism is a meme that is in vogue.
> > >
> > > There's a phenomena taking place in one part of 6% of the world's
> > > population,  that's true.
> > >
> > > >Evolution needs a better PR firm.
> > >
> > > I suggest to begin here:
> > >
> > > "Learning to Speak Science "
> > > by Chris Mooney
> > >
> > > http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/01/learning_to_speak_science.php
> > >
> > > ----------------
> > > An excerpt:
> > >
> > > {begin quote}
> > > What the scientific community-not just scientists, mind you, but
> > > people who care about the role science plays in building a better
> > > society-is realizing is that scientific knowledge itself is
> > > politically vulnerable. We've seen the Bush administration's assaults
> > > on science on issues ranging from climate change to Plan B emergency
> > > contraception (the "morning after" pill); we're witnessing a newly
> > > resurgent anti-evolutionist movement that's spreading
> > > community-to-community and state-to-state. And we're frustrated with a
> > > national media that seeks to hear "both sides," even on subjects (like
> > > evolution) where no scientific debate actually exists.
> > >
> > > Coming to grips with science's newly exposed political and cultural
> > > vulnerability will require scientists to emphasize a rather different
> > > set of skills than they're used to privileging. Although it's not true
> > > of all scientists, too many have grown accustomed to the security of
> > > their labs and university communities, occasionally lamenting the
> > > American public's poor understanding of science but doing little in a
> > > concerted way to improve it. And small wonder: American science
> > > rewards the publication of peer-reviewed research, but offers little
> > > incentive for scientists to communicate and translate what they know
> > > to the public. So scientists in the US have little practice when it
> > > comes to crafting a message or winning a political debate, and their
> > > inexperience sometimes leads to ill-advised actions that have the
> > > tendency to backfire.
> > >
> > > Consider the scientific community's engagement (or lack thereof) with
> > > the anti-evolutionist Kansas State Board of Education. When the Board
> > > called hearings on evolution, the scientific community boycotted. When
> > > the Board began to rewrite state science standards, compromising
> > > biology education, the National Academy of Sciences denied the Kansas
> > > Board permission to use their copyrighted educational material. The
> > > scientific community's distrust of the Kansas Board is understandable.
> > > But such actions make scientists look like haughty snobs and elitists
> > > who simply refuse to engage with ordinary Americans-an already
> > > prevalent stereotype that hardly needs reinforcing.
> > >
> > > What we defenders of science must realize, if we want to combat
> > > political attacks effectively, is that we have much to learn about
> > > political communication and strategizing. Ideally, and in the best
> > > spirit of science, we should view the current political quandary as a
> > > problem to be addressed through trial and error-empirical attempts to
> > > determine what actually works when it comes to translating science for
> > > the general public.
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > When it comes to defending evolution, another communications
> > > thinker-the celebrated Berkeley cognitive linguist George Lakoff-has
> > > other useful suggestions for the scientific community. The United
> > > States is, of course, a very religious country; one in which many
> > > fundamentalists attack evolution but also one in which many moderate
> > > Christians support it. In this context, Lakoff explains that
> > > scientists ought to be defending evolution by highlighting scientists
> > > who are able to reconcile evolution with religious faith. The ideal
> > > messengers to reach the public on this issue, then, would be
> > > evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians. People, in
> > > short, like Brown University evolution defender Kenneth R. Miller, a
> > > practicing Catholic and author of the book Finding Darwin's God: A
> > > Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution.
> > > {end quote}
> > >
> > > [me: Incidently, this last sentence highlights why I consider my
> > > Vatican astronomer friend a gem. He doesn't need to justify or explain
> > > himself to other astronomers because 1) all are more-or-less seeking
> > > the 'big picture', and 2) he is a world-class scientist himself. The
> > > precious bridge that he can provide is that he can explain to
> > > fundamentalists how valuable is science. If atheist scientists wish to
> > > gain the support of highly religious people, they will need people
> > > like him.]
> > >
> > > Similarly, Lakoff agrees that scientists did a poor job dealing with
> > > the Kansas Board of Education. What they should have done instead, he
> > > suggests, was to launch a comprehensive national campaign to explain
> > > evolution to the public, emphasizing how "converging evidence" from a
> > > wide range of areas-the fossil record, radioisotope dating, genetics,
> > > and many other disciplines-all independently confirm and strengthen
> > > the evolutionary account. In short, the scientific community should be
> > > promoting a positive message that teaches the public why evolution is
> > > such a powerful scientific theory, and about how scientists weigh
> > > evidence.
> > >
> > >
> > > (see the article for all, it's a nice article)
> > >
> > > ----------------
> > >
> > > Amara
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > extropy-chat mailing list
> > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat