dimreepr

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Swarm_intelligence#Taxonomy_of_Swarm_Intelligence Wildebeest as well as naked mole rats fall into this definition. In the wiki link you provide the term eusocial is used to describe the naked mole rat. The same term is also used for ants, termites bees and wasps. "Stigmergy is a form of self-organization. It produces complex, seemingly intelligent structures, without need for any planning, control, or even direct communication between the agents. As such it supports efficient collaboration between extremely simple agents, who lack any memory, intelligence or even individual awareness of each other." /edit quote from wikipedia I see no reason why humans would be; perhaps you could provide some evidence. That is pheromones produced by non human entities.

OK, if we assume no negative consequences then of course killing the species of mosquito responsible for carrying malaria can only be good for the human race. The question of an ethical choice is somewhat moot as I doubt, if proof of no negative consequences were available, anyone could reasonably argue against it. However as so often pointed out in this thread there is no way of ascertaining what the consequences would be and given this basic fact I can only conclude that, ethically, it’s wrong.

I do get this and have, to my mind, answered the OP in post #7 all subsequent posts on my part have been directly answering your statements or questions. As you are the originator of this thread I didn’t feel I was moving the thread off topic by answering you. In post #11 I directly answer both your post #10 and the OP with this statement “trying to play god in this way is, ethically, wrong.” At this point I think a re-phrasing of the OP may be in order, if you want the discussion to continue.

Any point? You may be right, but without the ability to predict the future it’s impossible to knowing which species that is.

The ant/termite colony uses, as you say, chemical messages and pheromones to co-ordinate responses to external stimuli. Group or herd intelligence is a well known phenomenon and depends on the individuals, within the herd/colony being essentially, stupid; the individual has a limited capability of deciding a response for itself. This however doesn't translate to animals with a higher consciousness; the groups therein rely on co-operation rather than chemically induced or automatic reactions. For your idea to work, without telepathy, would require the flora and fauna of the planet to communicate directly in some way, I would at some level be influenced by, let's say, ants in my decision process. Instead what we have is a kind of balance in that each organism has found a way to live in the environment in which they find themselves. Even inorganic material can display emergent qualities that can appear to have a consciousness.

He's one of my favourite authors, the foundation series is, IMO, a must read.

This idea was explored by Isaac Asimov in his book “foundation and earth” he takes the idea a stage further in that the planetary consciousness, Gaia, was aware and was shared via telepathy to every living entity on the planet. For this reason I’ve always opposed the idea, as telepathy would be the only viable way the idea could work, whether or not the consciousness was aware.

If you want the thread to follow the OP more closely, please ask more relevant questions. My first reply contains my thoughts on the subject, I realise the OP asks a specific question “Assuming we can wipe out mosquitoes and have no consequences, should we do it?” I couldn’t properly answer the question as it’s based on a false premise (in reality “no consequences” is improbable in the extreme) and I felt I had to point this out because, if the action is truly without consequences then it would render the question moot.

Why do you need to believe in god, (to play god) to exterminate a species? Our physical brains may not change or evolve but I would like to think our attitudes, towards nature, will.

I’ve highlighted the salient point. Things may average out but that doesn’t make two things with a similar average, the same. The average you describe may make them appear equal, but appearances, in this context, are deceptive.

"but it's my hope that we will have developed sufficiently to not want to wield such power." By this I mean I hope the human race will evolve, at least morally, to the point that we realize trying to play god in this way is, ethically, wrong.

The last sentence of my post address' this point.

How does this argue my point? If anything it further articulates what I’m saying.

There are reasons for life but no point to it and we have precious little time in terms of human life span. Life is what you make of it, we all have the choice to, either enjoy it or to be miserable, whatever your personal circumstance. The choice is yours nobody can decide for you, expect nothing, and accept everything you can’t change.

The natural world is so complex and diverse that trying to eradicate one species, even malaria, almost certainly will have consequences, an emergent quality that can’t be predicted. Wiping out humans would certainly help nature re-adjust, in terms of the havoc we continue to visit on the planet. However we are part of the diversity of nature, just one more evolutionary pressure for our fellow creatures. As Cnut the great tired to point out with his attempt at stopping the tides, we might think we have dominion over nature, but as of now we simply don’t. Maybe in future we might, but it’s my hope that we will have developed sufficiently to not want to wield such power.

For me it’s an extension of the phrase “you can’t cross the same river twice” it’s merely extrapolation of my observations of the natural world, a bit of a leap, I admit. The predator prey struggle is, in most animals, finely balanced and only when the prey animal is weakened through injury age or disease are the scales tipped in favour of the predator, but it doesn’t make these animals equal. Nature is in constant flux and very few animals remain unchanged by the survival pressures that result. Even the animals that have so far remained unchanged by this process, the horse shoe crab for instance, will, given enough time be changed. My statement was meant only to highlight that we, humans, aren’t equal. Even identical twins, with time, diverge in abilities and motivation.

You seem to have missed the point of my post, my reference to evolution, in this context, was meant only to highlight the fact that equality doesn't naturally exist. Politically it is a rallying call that could never be achieved simply because everybody has different abilities and motivation. All we can hope for in any political system is fairness of treatment. We should all have the same opportunities in education, the individual is then responsible as to how that opportunity is utilised.

The problem as I see it is one of conflict. 1. The first area of conflict is the morally corrupt verses society. All systems of governance are open to corruption, indeed most systems have subtle loopholes (for want of a better word) that not only allow this but actively encourage it, but only to those in the know (inner circle of power). The founding fathers of America saw this in the British system and sought to close the loopholes with the constitution, though, which future amendments slowly erode allowing cracks to be exploited. This is evolution at work. 2. Which brings me on to the second area of conflict, intellect verses evolution. Many times in this thread the word “equality” crops up, a laudable sentiment, and one I wish were true, but ultimately specious. It’s impossible, there is no equality anywhere in nature, otherwise evolution would stagnate and the world would never change. If the lions and the wildebeest were equal the lions would starve. The speed with which modern society evolves far outstrips nature’s ability to evolve us; we therefore have an imbalance that is the route of the problem, and no amount of intellectual reasoning and argument can change this fundamental. 3. The individual verses society. Society’s needs are very different to that of the individual. A healthy society has a pyramidal shape with the average worker at the bottom, society’s leaders at the top. Every individual within that pyramid wants more than he/she has right now and the leaders satisfied with their lot, this is healthy. The conflict arises because the leaders aren’t satisfied either and strive for more and more money/power. Wealth when concentrated in just a few individuals is the cancer that eats at the flesh of society; it can only ever weaken us. In conclusion, the only way I see, that any system could ever really work is that the excess’ that our leaders indulge in are stopped or at least minimised. To establish a healthy society we need to find a way to build on the vision of the founding fathers, to find a way to counter the erosion of amendments and reduce the involvement of the state in individual lives.

Also it’s very useful in teaching young children. Instinctively, when the mother or father, see’s their child in danger (stepping into the road for instance) the first reaction is to grab the child (ensuring the child’s safety) followed in short order by the angry slap, followed later (when the parent has calmed) by the reassuring hug. The lesson the child takes from this experience is measured (instinctively) by the nature and length (time between the slap and the hug) of the parents anger. So no anger no lesson learnt.

Unless faster than light travel is attainable, which at present isn’t or ever likely to be, then the question of what percentage of light speed we achieve is moot. The more pressing question then becomes sustainability, how to maintain the crew long enough to find a suitable planet for colonisation. As Moontanman suggested an artificial eco-system is the only viable option. As taking enough supplies would be impossible, given the length of the journey is unknowable. As my previous post suggests this is achievable now (when I say now I mean in the next 25 years), if we had a sudden need to set up such colonies.

I didn't start this thread to get caught up in individual cases, I don't know enough of the specifics of this case to offer any sort of judgement and as I have previously stated "not all non-violent crimes should escape incarceration." The idea that prisons harden criminality is not new read this http://www.thenation...n-criminals-yes edit to change font size

I said in the OP “Incarceration of non violent people starts to move into the realm of revenge” by which I mean two things: Firstly the social clamor to incarcerate generally, IMO, outweighs the severity of the crime. Secondly I intended this to imply that not all non-violent crimes should escape incarceration. This is definitely worth noting. Particularly note the difference between the USA and Japan. The OP deals with the entire prison population, there aren’t any specific crimes involved they’re not relevant. It strikes me that the most logical conclusion is to take them out of the prisons and find a better way...

Traditionally the prisons were dungeons. The Stone Age didn’t end because they ran out of stones. Reductio ad absurdum. There are many ways to punish people prison isn’t the only option. Putting people in prison is often counterproductive, as it only serves to harden criminality and when did I say we shouldn’t punish the wrong doers.

I think the one thing that transcends all religions, whatever forms the deities take. All basic morals can be traced back to this basic premise which, when done honestly by all of society, would solve most of our problems. What is this one thing that would solve all our problems? “Do unto others as you would have others do to you”. Why, if this is so easy, does society have so many problems? Good question, especially when you factor in the fact that, whilst we are all individual, we are all essentially clones. I can answer this simply enough, people aren’t being honest. Only when we lose the fear that if you did do this honestly, you would be ripped off. A decent honest society is perfectly possible and has existed and is possible without a belief in god.

The life time of the initial travelers shouldn't be too significant of an obstacle in that situation; read all of the above posts. I think you should read my sentence more carefully