Peter gave us a dood summary on the theme
>Human evolution since the beginning of modern people has been by
>cultural advantages. All new technologies are tools of cultural
>evolution
and showed how it is speeding up over 70,000 years worth of positive
feedback.
Bateson, first made the point that evolution is learning and I would see
these 70,000 [and a lot more before] years as a period of ever
accelerating learning. We may only recently have *named* the learning
organisation as a distinction that we choose to have exist but language,
technology and organisation have been 'learning' for a lot longer.
Human 'culture' and all the capabilities that made it possible is [or is
perceivable as] a case of a biological breakthrough escaping the natural
checks and balances that previously kept the biosphere within some set of
limits. Read Rivers out of Eden by Richard Dawkins for earlier examples.
The problem, as I see it is that every previous example has ultimately
provoked a feedback crisis [e.g. oxygen in the atmosphere or the odd ice
age] which created new opportunity space but also proved fatal for the
biosphere of the time. Just because we have inherited 70,000 years of what
we tend to call progress doesn't mean that we should expect it to
continue. Can we learn to retain the balance before it is too late? Does
this make any sense to anyone?
If Price
The Harrow Partnership
Pewley Fort Guildford UK
101701.3454@compuserve.com
--Dr Ilfryn Price <101701.3454@CompuServe.COM>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>