Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!bcc.ac.uk!news
From: Chris Harris <charris@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution? Hmmmmmm.....
Message-ID: <1995Feb24.164046.48361@ucl.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 16:40:46 GMT
References: <3gpddj$t2b@usenet.rpi.edu> <D3DKGJ.Luy@indirect.com> <3h9avu$35t@tribune.usask.ca> <3hbjaq$iaf@news.u.washington.edu> <3hcpup$a8n@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <3heb9h$shg@tribune.usask.ca> <D3txML.61B@indirect.com> <3hodal$5im@news.u.washington.edu>
Organization: University College London
Lines: 19

> spaceboy@indirect.com (s p a c e b o y) writes:
> 
> 	Of course, this all assumes that evolutionary success is defined 
> by how many creatures of other species one can kill.  Which is 
> incorrect.  It's about how well one is conformed to one's environment.  
> Many times, that involves working in concert (intentionally or not) with 
> other species.  Life and reality aren't a "game" we're playing with all 
> of the other species as opponents.
> 

Surely the point here is that humans change the environment rather
than conform to it. I do think we can be set apart from the rest
of nature in this respect, because a) we don't think in evolutionary
timescales, but in those of a single lifetime b) things we do and
create can last much longer than we ourselves do c) we don't play
by the rules that natural selection uses for other species. Our
species changes the environment, so we are 'cheating' in that respect.

Chris Harris
