I only respond to bits that are clear
enough for me to comprehend...
>From the latter message about the
only concept I managed was "concern"...
>From the one next - individual freedoms
would be only lessened for a small minority,
for the rest I think a change to the future
I advocate would mean more individual freedom.
I don't know how you define intelligence.
I thought we are all capable listen to reason
and make decisions for a future we can visualise,
but most of us don't have the
opportunity to do so.
Eva
> Eva,
>
> You persist in not addressing the words of your antagonists, & respond
> based upon your revisionist interpretations, ignoring parts that would be
> inconsistent with your ideal.
> See the second para. below. Note that Jay & I fully expect humans to either
> revolt/self-destruct *or* to wake-up to the lessening of individual
> freedoms required for the 'common good'. The "intelligence" you seek to
> objectify is nothing more than total adaptive fitness to habitat, including
> creative & scientific aspects. Humans are not divisible in actuality, only
> by theoreticians.
>
> Steve
>
> > Not contempt, Eva. Concern. The decline isn't limited to mental
> > (brain/nervous system). No species is composed of exact replicas/equals.
> > Adaptive fitness is a reality. Humans are the only species known that
> > attempts to make differences disappear - a physical impossibility. For
> > those dealing in 'souls' or 'spirits', I have nothing to say, and you have
> > nothing to show us.
> >
> > This doesn't make deep democracy impossible; recall Garrett Harden's
> > "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" as the rational way forward. (see
> > Jay's site: dieoff.org)
> >
>
