3 ms·

>programme It's not a programme, that would make it eugenics, which it's not - there are no centralized decisions, there is no hiearchy with beings at the top

by mxkopy 5y ago

>programme It's not a programme, that would make it eugenics, which it's not - there are no centralized decisions, there is no hiearchy with beings at the top saying "we want this trait but not this one." You would have to believe in a Lain-esque intelligence directing every cultural and biological movement from a central location, and in that case...stop taking acid and go to the club if you do...

vmception 5y ago
odd nitpick since that word is there for grammatical affect in direct contract to centralized decisions
- mxkopy 5y ago
  I don't know how you think that programme means anything other than a centralized decision making process. It doesn't matter if you put "population wide selective breeding of the exact same traits" - it actually matters especially if you do - before a word that means "a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim" - you think this process of "population wide selective breeding of the exact same traits" has an aim, which it most emphatically does not have an aim, as it is a response to environmental conditions. Unless you think the environment has an aim? Even still, in no world does any single or group of individuals have any sway over this process.
  - kergonath 5y ago
    > I don't know how you think that programme means anything other than a centralized decision making process. That might be a language issue. “Programme” (or related words) does not necessarily have the same centralisation nuance in different languages. No need to be harsh if it could just be an interpretation issue. (Though yes, the first post is pretty wild)
    - mxkopy 5y ago
      There are a million other words they could have chosen. I'm harsh on this word because it's emblematic of the problem mindset. Programme at the very least implies some sort of coherence. It's clear to me they think that individuals are choosing to influence evolution through some "programme". If there is coherence in evolution it has nothing to do with the individual. This could have been a direct translation from Sanskrit and the ideas would still be wrong.
      - ben_w 5y ago
        While I agree that “programme” is a poor choice which brings with it totally incorrect implications, I can see how the word might be arrived at: evolution -> evolutionary algorithm -> algorithm -> computer program -> program -> programme.
      - kergonath 5y ago
        I don’t see how to explain it more clearly: the same word can have different nuances in different languages. Therefore, using the word can be a translation issue rather than the person making that specific argument. So you are attacking an argument that the person did not necessarily make (at least not intentionally). Now, I could well be wrong, but the fact that the word is not consistent with the rest of the comment is an indication. Again, there is no need to be so agressive.

by mxkopy 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

odd nitpick since that word is there for grammatical affect in direct contract to centralized decisions

mxkopy 5y ago
I don't know how you think that programme means anything other than a centralized decision making process. It doesn't matter if you put "population wide selective breeding of the exact same traits" - it actually matters especially if you do - before a word that means "a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim" - you think this process of "population wide selective breeding of the exact same traits" has an aim, which it most emphatically does not have an aim, as it is a response to environmental conditions. Unless you think the environment has an aim? Even still, in no world does any single or group of individuals have any sway over this process.
- kergonath 5y ago
  > I don't know how you think that programme means anything other than a centralized decision making process. That might be a language issue. “Programme” (or related words) does not necessarily have the same centralisation nuance in different languages. No need to be harsh if it could just be an interpretation issue. (Though yes, the first post is pretty wild)
  - mxkopy 5y ago
    There are a million other words they could have chosen. I'm harsh on this word because it's emblematic of the problem mindset. Programme at the very least implies some sort of coherence. It's clear to me they think that individuals are choosing to influence evolution through some "programme". If there is coherence in evolution it has nothing to do with the individual. This could have been a direct translation from Sanskrit and the ideas would still be wrong.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      While I agree that “programme” is a poor choice which brings with it totally incorrect implications, I can see how the word might be arrived at: evolution -> evolutionary algorithm -> algorithm -> computer program -> program -> programme.
    - kergonath 5y ago
      I don’t see how to explain it more clearly: the same word can have different nuances in different languages. Therefore, using the word can be a translation issue rather than the person making that specific argument. So you are attacking an argument that the person did not necessarily make (at least not intentionally). Now, I could well be wrong, but the fact that the word is not consistent with the rest of the comment is an indication. Again, there is no need to be so agressive.