Re:Can the Nervous System be Hacked?
by jonsen on Monday May 26, 2014 @05:57AM
(#7799207)
Innovation is not stifled. Look around, we have plenty. But we can't have too much. Evolution should happen with reasonably stability. Evolution takes place on the border between order and chaos. Innovation is promoting force. We need retarding forces too.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I think I disagree.
I see no definitive/logical reason for establishing an upper-bound on innovation. The past several centuries are a testament to the fact that biological evolution and human innovation have a symbiotic relationship^1. That's not to say that there aren't drawbacks to innovation, particularly to the implementations of said innovation, but rather that I personally believe those detrimental aspects would be best mitigated by altering implementations of current infrastructure/technology, not by stifling innovation.
Re:Can the Nervous System be Hacked?
by jamesrcole on Monday May 26, 2014 @08:47AM
(#7799505)
Are you trying to suggest that we, at present, have the right amount, or close to the right amount? If so, on what grounds?
I'm just trying to say that one should not neglect the importance of damping factors in dynamic systems. Our human environment is a complex dynamic system. No one can tell what would be the right amount of evolutionary progress without risking runaway phenomena. An example of which could be all the innovation taking place in Germany before WW II.