From Newsgroup: alt.tv.star-trek.tos   
   From Address: sdlitvin@earthlink.net   
   Subject: Re: The Eye of the Beholder (TAS): my review   
      
      
      
   "Led4Aces"  wrote in message    
   news:315d6c6e-7dfa-4dc8-b4f3-347c7ac05a7f@o35g2000prn.googlegroups.com:   
      
   > On Oct 10, 10:26aam, Graeme  wrote:   
   > > On Oct 9, 10:14aam, "Steven L."  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > Our own obsession with exploration is an evolutionary holdover from our   
   > > > hunter-gatherer ancestors, who were constantly on the move in search of   
   > > > new game to hunt and new fruit to pick. aBut a civilization that didn't   
   > > > evolve from hunter-gatherers might have a totally different set of   
   > > > values.   
   > >   
   > > That's the problem with evolution. aNot the science part, but rather   
   > > all the philosophy and speculation that people try to grandfather in   
   > > under the label "evolution". a   
   >   
   > More accurately, the problem lies with people who speculate and then   
   > draw conclusions.   
   >   
   > The worst offender there was probably   
   > > Phlox deciding that evolution wanted a race wiped out. a   
   >   
   > True. Evolution is not a 'thing' or a prime mover in any way. It   
   > doesn't have an ethos.   
   >   
   > There are   
   > > obviously many values we hold that cavemen didn't have, so it seems   
   > > kind of silly to say that all the ones we do have in common with them   
   > > (assuming that we do at all) must have been passed down in some kind   
   > > of mystical process, which accounts for all our values except for the   
   > > ones it doesn't. aThat's not really science.   
   >   
   > Humans were once hunter-gatherers and or nomadic. Steve L maintained   
   > that that is why we have our curiosity today, as a carry over from   
   > when humans were constantly on the move. Yet humans have been residing   
   > in towns/settlements and farming for at least 10,000 years now, yet we   
   > haven't lost that desire to umm.... seek out new life and new.... well   
   > you get it.   
      
   it's not a mystical process as Graeme thought.   
   It's Darwinian natural selection.   
      
   It's in our genes to be restless, since those hominids that didn't feel    
   like moving on when food was scarce died of starvation and left no    
   descendants.   
      
      
   > And I'm not sure why non hunter/gatherer civilizations would somehow   
   > lack curiosity about the universe or even what lies beyond the nearest   
   > mountain.   
      
   A species that gets its energy from photosynthesis has no reason to find    
   out what lies beyond the nearest mountain.  That's why there aren't any    
   mobile plants on Earth.  (Even a Venus Flytrap can't uproot itself and    
   move to another locale where there are more insects to feed on.)   
      
      
      
   > It's really about brain development and ,quite to the   
   > contrary, when humans started growing their own food and domesticating   
   > animals, it actually freed up more time to ponder other things....like   
   > art, architecture, tech innovation.... which in turn led ultimately   
   > led to space exploration.   
      
   No.  You could have an advanced society that was isolationist.   
      
   On Earth, the original purpose of exploration was to find new natural    
   resources and land.  (Columbus was trying to find a new route to India    
   to obtain valuable spices.)  Which as I said is based on why    
   hunter-gatherer tribes traveled.   
      
   Space exploration has proceeded more slowly than science-fiction writers    
   had expected--precisely because we haven't found natural resources in    
   space that make the trip worthwhile.   
      
      
      
   -- Steven L.   
      
      
      
      
   --- Synchronet 3.15a-Linux NewsLink 1.92-mlp   
   --- SBBSecho 2.12-Linux   
    * Origin: telnet & http://cco.ath.cx - Dial-Up: 502-875-8938 (1:2320/105.1)