Re: Bottlenecks (or not) in human evolutionary history, as promised to Dorothy Heydt a year ago! (long)

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 04:36:22 +0000 (UTC), Johnny Tindalos
<JamaisVu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>>> The genes conferring the modern phenotypic traits conferred a greater
>>> selective advantage than those that specified archaic traits, and thus
>>> eventually replaced them within each population.
>>
>> Hmm. I always suspected it was something like that....
>>
>
>Groups of genes competing and co-operating in the sea of the sum of human

>[4] Sometimes they don't quite make it - but that's almost always okay
>too, 'cause all of those times but one, it doesn't matter[5].
>
>[5] And that's also okay, or more nearly okay than it might at first
>appear, because (as it seems to me to be the case thus far) there is no
>*guarantee* that the time last mentioned will actually ever arrive[6].
>
>[6] Of course, it also seems that there's no guarantee that it _won't_.
>This would not be okay at all, but it is not so bad as it seems for the
>swimmers and their sea, because they only *act* like they care - see
>[1], then [7].
>
>[7] In order to act like they care, they learnt to build things they'd
>need for this. These come in a dazzling myriad of shapes and hues and
>intricate designs, but although they're necessary for the acted caring,
>those that commanded their construction don't act as though *they* care
>about them one little bit, as soon as it's more useful not to[8].
>
>[8] And that's why it's *** being the ghost in the machine.

Since you're back[*], I can't resist pointing out that you don't need
the links between consecutive paragraphs -- it would read the same
as

[4] Sometimes they don't quite make it - but that's almost always
okay too, 'cause all of those times but one, it doesn't matter.

And that's also okay, or more nearly okay than it might at first
appear, because (as it seems to me to be the case thus far) there
is no *guarantee* that the time last mentioned will actually ever
arrive.

Of course, it also seems that there's no guarantee that it _won't_.
This would not be okay at all, but it is not so bad as it seems for
the swimmers and their sea, because they only *act* like they care
- see [1].

In order to act like they care, they learnt to build things they'd
need for this. These come in a dazzling myriad of shapes and hues
and intricate designs, but although they're necessary for the acted
caring, those that commanded their construction don't act as though
*they* care about them one little bit, as soon as it's more useful
not to.

And that's why it's *** being the ghost in the machine.

Jonathan

[*] You said:
I'm not sure if I mentioned the fact, but when I started this
thread, I was rather more than a little strung out...I apologise if
the above'n'similar made no sense, I was just trying to articulate
what I believe to be somewhat of a bummer about the human condition.

It made sense, although it was not, to my mind, a model of perfect
clarity. How would you word it while feeling laid back and mellow? Or
would it no longer matter? :-)

JLC

--
Mail to spam auto-deleted, use jlc1 instead.
(That's jay ell cee one, if your font makes l and 1 look the same)

.