evolution?

[Roberto Verzola <rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org>]

Henry,

 >- cost, equipment was expensive and had to be used in the most
 >effective way. Wasting two characters on teh centuary made no sense.
 >
 >- effort, users of systems saw no reason at all to enter 19 everytime
 >the captured a date. How many of us do so in our daily writing?

The second excuse is easily answered: any respectable programmer can
write an input routine that will accept only 2-digit years and then
automatically add a 2-digit century, so users don't have to enter the
19 everytime.

The first excuse may be acceptable for those who programmed in the
1950s or 60s. But in later decades, the excuse gets flimsier. It is
certainly not acceptable for Windows 95...

 >Dont forget that the problem is a transient one. In 5 years time
 >business school gurus, programmers and others will look back on this
 >as an odditty brought on by the passage of time as they continue to
 >build system with only two digits in the year. Ninety five years to go

The Y2K problem may be transient, but the flawed mindsets that led to
it are not. These mindsets are causing other problems (ecological,
economic, etc.), which may even be more serious than the millennium
bug.

 >All of these, and many other industries, cause death and damage in
 >great numbers, indeed you refer to some of the side effects later.
 >
 >If we are going to develop some kind of totally "death by result
 >free" world then we need to convince the world that we have to return
 >to a lower standard of living. Or at least accept a different set of
 >standards than those that have evolved over time, particularly in the
 >Western World.

It really depends on the standard of living we are talking about.
Certainly, the current living standards of the world's elites are not
only way beyond what can be supported by the Earth, but they also use
up resources that are better used uplifting the quality of life of the
world's poor. The elites maintain their high living standards
basically by keeping everybody else poor.

I don't accept that these things are products of evolution and are
therefore immutable. Unlike other species, we can learn and reason out
and we are gifted with a conscious will. I think we can change these
things, if we want to badly enough.

 >Like the distribution of narcotics, human needs and greed will always
 >play a major role as parameters in the evolutionary cycle.

If you accept that governments are right in trying to control
narcotics, even if it is admittedly difficult to do so, then there is
no reason why government's shouldn't likewise try to change those
mindsets which are bringing us closer to disaster.

 >There is absolutely no homogenuity around the world. at the most
 >basic levels we drive on different sides of the road, have differing
 >political beliefs, support differing economic systems and enjoy
 >different spiritual satisfactions.
 >
 >There is no such thing as Global Thinking Patterns which can be
 >changed. The thinking patterns depend very much on where you come
 >from, what your expectations are and who your friends are.

Maybe not global thinking pattersn, but there certainly are thinking
patterns which led to the Y2K and are likewise leading us to
ecological disaster. I have described four:
     - gain-maximization
     - externalizing costs
     - globalism
     - quantification fetish

 >Arguably totally artificial and of no real importance. What makes the
 >change from 1995 to 2005 of signifigance? Calenders are arbitarily

It has psychological significance, because one of the props of the
present system is public confidence. If the public losses its
confidence (in the food supply system, in the banks, in the justice
system, etc.), it will confound the technical problems due to Y2K.

 >At an academic level I believe the first would be a worthwhile if not
 >futile process however your second objective looks hopeless.

First, you must truly settle in your mind if it is worthwhile or not.
If you think it is, then you should at least leave yourself open to
the idea that others (if not you yourself) should try. It will look
futile and hopeless only if many like you decide not to do it,
although they think it is worthwhile.

>You for example may not like elephant culling where as we believe it
>must happen because with out it the artificially constrained natural
>reserves will collapse, you dont like tobacco but to millions in
>Zimbabwe their very lives depend on it. More innocent people will die of
>starvation from a lack of work than will die early from the product.

That millions today plant tobacco or sugar for their livelihood (true
also for Philippine peasants) is a legacy of colonialism and is
reinforced by globalization; it is not their voluntary choice. If you
acknowledge that it is bad, then we should take steps to change it. We
can, for example, encourage them to gradually shift back to food
production.

In sum, my basic response is that you seem to see these problems as
part of evolution and therefore there's little we can do about them. I
think there's a lot we can do about them, if enough of us try hard
enough.

Roberto