In article <9401101318.AA22838 at net.bio.net> LYONSW at UCONNVM.bitnet (James) writes:
>Subject: ranking biological success
>From: LYONSW at UCONNVM.bitnet (James)
>Date: 10 Jan 1994 05:18:24 -0800
I've just finished reading "Lila" by Robert Pirsig. This is a sort of sequel
to his "Zen and the Art of Motocycle Mainenance".
It is obvious to me that "biological success" is a *QUALITY* term (Pirsig
terminology) and hence its definition is problematic.
In the second book, Pirsig discusses evolution and points out that the
different levels (cells, organisms, societies) each show their own
evolutionary levels. e.g. an organisms may evolve so that certain
cell types are favoured and an ecosystem can evolve at the expense of certain
species.
I suggest that the massive growth in human population is not really a result
of individual fitness, but of social evolution. It seems that your can't
measure the latter by DNA complexity or any other "biological" parameter.
One suggestion is to change the question to definining
the **purpose** of life;-) Then it can be discussed in another newsgroup.
__
Jonathan B. Marder '
Department of Agricultural Botany | Internet: MARDER at AGRI.HUJI.AC.IL
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem | /\/ Bitnet: MARDER at HUJIAGRI
Faculty of Agriculture |/ \ Phone: (08 or +9728) 481918
P.O.Box 12, Rehovot 76100, ISRAEL / Fax: (08 or +9728) 467763
