Good Douglas Adams

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Enjoy

 

[Hawk one]

Enjoy

That and another article appearing in The Salmon of Doubt was what introduced me to Richard Dawkins, making me buy his first book The Selfish Gene, which again gave me some new insights I wasn't previously aware of. So if it hadn't been for Adams dying too soon, I may not have read the article, and I most likely wouldn't have bought Dawkins' book, as I bought them both during a trip in London. Which again may not have made me interested enough in evolution to, when I got the chance, checking out Talk Origins.

Nothing more than a coincidence, but still, I think DNA may have enjoyed hearing of this chain of events... Apart from the part where he died, of course.

 

[Jon.]

Re: Re: Good Douglas Adams

That and another article appearing in The Salmon of Doubt was what introduced me to Richard Dawkins, making me buy his first book The Selfish Gene, which again gave me some new insights I wasn't previously aware of. So if it hadn't been for Adams dying too soon, I may not have read the article, and I most likely wouldn't have bought Dawkins' book, as I bought them both during a trip in London. Which again may not have made me interested enough in evolution to, when I got the chance, checking out Talk Origins.

Nothing more than a coincidence, but still, I think DNA may have enjoyed hearing of this chain of events... Apart from the part where he died, of course.

Exactly the same for me, except that I read The Blind Watchmaker , and I had found Talk Origins earlier. I certainly understood it better after reading Dawkins, though!

 

[FireGarden]

DNA = POM?

Adams compares his idea of "artificial God" with money. Later, comes a bit where traditional, religious Bali farming beats science. (He may as well have used Halal meat Vs BSE beef in Britain). Then:

It’s all very well to say that basing the rice harvest on something as irrational and meaningless as a religion is stupid - they should be able to work it out more logically than that, but they might just as well say to us, ‘Your culture and society works on the basis of money and that’s a fiction, so why don’t you get rid of it and just co-operate with each other’ - we know it’s not going to work!Â_


[...] So, my argument is that as we become more and more scientifically literate, it’s worth remembering that the fictions with which we previously populated our world may have some function that it’s worth trying to understand and preserve the essential components of, rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water; because even though we may not accept the reasons given for them being here in the first place, it may well be that there are good practical reasons for them, or something like them, to be there.

Something Adams misses is that if we don't know the function of our fictions (EG: Money, God etc) then we don't know how we are being used and manipulated.

Is the purpose of money co-operation? Or is it to enable some to have an easier life than others?

"If we believe absurdities we will commit atrocities", like allowing people to live in unbearable poverty. We'll even commit absurdities, like preaching free markets while not trading fairly. All a consequence of Screwtape's trap: "Believe a thing, not because it is true, but for some other reason."