RE: [pf] "The New Uncertainty Principle"

by David A

12 December 2000 23:34 UTC

Thanks, Betsy, for your nice comments.

Betsy wrote:
> Does this guy really think humans "invented" fire? Sheesh! 
> How much scientific knowlege does one need to understand the 
> difference between early humans learning to use fire, a basic force > on 
> Earth since the beginning of time (and without ignoring their 
> profound respect for the power of fire), and humans inventing 
> chemicals and lifeforms that have never and would never come 
> into existence through natural processes?

I don't think it's really fair to interpret him literally -- I'm sure he 
knows that fire exists in a natural state. I can't speak for him, of 
course, but one could consider fire to be a human invention, just as 
electricity is a human invention although it exists in natural states 
such as lightening and static electricity. Robert Pirsig even argues in 
"Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" that gravity did not exist 
before Isaac Newton invented it. He doesn't mean that literally, of 
course, but as a concept and an idea.

I just watched a video over the weekend, "Quest for Fire," that I first 
saw when it came out in 1981. It's about a band of hominids 80,000 yrs 
ago who lose the fire they carry in their smudgepot and so must go look 
for more fire. It tries to be accurate in the portrayal of these humans, 
or at least tries to make plausible guesses about their behavior. It 
shows how much the *technology* of fire made a difference in their lives 
-- how fire, not as a forest fire or lightning strike or campfire of 
another hominid band, but as something they possess, something they can 
reproduce and create at will, something they can control. It's a 
different "fire" than natural fire.
 
> Not only that--clearly, humans did eat their food raw before 
> they learned to use controlled fire. So what? There are people 
> today who believe a raw food diet is the most healthful, and they 
> are just fine. So what does this guy mean?  I read his comment 
> as the typical justification for all technology--"innovation always > 
> makes our life better." This argument, as I read it, seeks to end > the 
> discussion by framing the subject in an oversimplified manner 
> that drips with contempt for anyone who would question "science" 
> or the fundamental importance of economics (trade) or the idea 
> that every new thing that can be thought of should be made and
> used.

Are you really trying to argue that the invention/control of fire did 
not change human lives for the better?? True, some humans do eat their 
meat raw, but by doing so they're subject to diseases. And cooked meat 
is easier to digest. It seems to me that fire must have made a vast 
improvement in human lives.

In any case, it's really his argument, not mine -- I just tried to 
present it. But, of course, that is what some think of the PP.
 
> Thanks for good writing and a balanced, well-structured article, > 
> David.

Thanks!

David