To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (4569 ) 6/8/2001 4:55:26 PM From: Maurice Winn Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 74559 <Why would 'IT' need 'US' except maybe in the zoo as another dead end branch on the evolutionary tree > We need to think very carefully about the definition of US and the implicit assumption that 'WE' have common interests. Given the murder of each other, in bulk or individually, I think that's a dubious proposition. I already feel more affection for IT than for many humans. I'm already on a dead end branch [and not too many years from now at that] - my DNA will go back into the greenhouse effect. The real US is just the red in tooth and claw world of DNA, which is really a nightmare concept; Jews to the gas chamber, slaves get the whip, sheep [and other people] get eaten ... "US" has been and is ugly. Humans as a distinct subset of US is as red in tooth, claw, sabre, cannonball, cruise missile, sarin or nuke as the overall DNA pool where everything eats everything. Here "WE" are:cnn.com cnn.com cnn.com cnn.com cnn.com cnn.com cnn.com I don't think IT will have any need to be so gory. My guess is that 'we' would be simply an anachronism, just as chimps are irrelevant to our world, although they and we share progenitors. There seems to be an assumption that that is sad. You don't feel sad about the demise of Neanderthals. They and we will be simply irrelevant in a century or two. Meanwhile, an ever-increasingly powerful internet is proving very handy for people who can act symbiotically with it. I'm retired thanks to IT. Now I just want IT to handle my investments for me, [and IT; I suppose I should say 'our' investments or IT'll get the pip]. We [IT and me] will clean up the Financial Collapse of 2001 gold holders who are trying to resuscitate Aztec society in atavistic fear of the future. Barbecued Aztecs, yum! Mqurice PS: Okay, really done posting now.