Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!phri!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
Message-ID: <277@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 10-Mar-86 14:26:54 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.277
Posted: Mon Mar 10 14:26:54 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Mar-86 22:49:38 EST
References: <8603090839.AA00847@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Reply-To: jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 50

In article <8603090839.AA00847@decwrl.DEC.COM> redford@JEREMY.DEC (John Redford) writes:
>
>J. Giles writes:
>
>>  This last is a (loose) paraphrase of something from Jacob Bronowski's
>>"Ascent of Man."
>>  "... If we do not take the next step in the ascent of man, it will
>>be taken elsewhere, in Africa, in China.  Should I feel that to be
>>sad?  No, not in itself.  Humanity has a right to change its colour.
>>And yet, wedded as I am to the civilization that nurtured me, I should
>>feel it to be infinitely sad.  I, whom England made, whom it taught
>>its language and its tolerance and excitement in intellectual
>>pursuits, I would feel it a grave sense of loss (as you would) if a
>>hundred years from now Shakespeare and Newton are historical fossils
>>in the ascent of man, in the way that Homer and Euclid are....
>>						- J. Bronowski
>
>Homer and Euclid fossils?  They are studied with respect to this day,
>millenia after they and their cultures died.

And yet, it is Newton's "Principia Mathematica" that modern students
learn for it's information content - Euclid's works for historical
interest.  Yes, Homer and Euclid ARE fossils in comparison to Newton
and Shakespeare.  The former are interesting glimpses of a now dead
civilization, the latter are important figures in the development of
our own.

>Everything dies, be it countries, or civilizations, or whole 
>species.  I doubt if America will be around in any recognizable form 
>in two thousand years, or if homo sapiens will be around in a hundred thousand.
>Our species didn't even exist a mere fifty thousand years ago, and 
>there are notable anatomical differences between us and the people of 
>even twenty thousand years ago.  Why imagine that the process has stopped?

I think you missed the point of Bronowski's remarks.  His whole thesis
is that the process of cultural and biological evolution will continue
(that is what he meant by "if we don't take the next step ... , it will
be taken elsewhere...").  The process hasn't stopped, it will (even must)
continue.  But, why imagine (as you seem to) that our culture must die in
order for the process to continue?  Isn't it more satisfying to think
that we MAY just manage to evolve into our OWN future?

Perhaps America won't be around in recognizable form in 2000 years (I
assume you mean the US - America is a set of two continents and is likely
to remain around for a few hundred million more years), but the England of
1066 isn't around in any recognizable form NOW.  And yet, the culture
formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture.

J. Giles
Los Alamos