Re: [asa] Nudging Evolution

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Sun Sep 13 2009 - 23:35:45 EDT

Hi Mike, So, you're modelling your view of 'nudging evolution' on human behaviour?! This seems to be a gigantic problem with your approach, Mike. I find it wonderful, however, at the same time! : ) You're not in danger, Mike, of becoming a neo-sociobiologist (LOL!), or at least it doesn't seem so. And so I hope not! But a new title for your view seems to be in order, one that could benefit from a clear and open dis-association with the IDM, which could be achieved by refusing to use the language categories of their choice. Get creative like your 'consilience of clues' once again! Why not create your own category/ies and wait for ID-friendly people (esp. those who are not advocates of ID = science, i.e. your position) to adopt it (along with non-dogmatic TEs) instead of their ideologically tainted concept duo of 'intelligent design' (or their religiously-disguised evolutionism)? Gregory p.s. I like your use of the term 'artificial selectors'. We human-social scientists use a different language, of cours, such as 'agent' or 'causitive actors' or 'human makers (homo faber)' and other such things, depending on theoretical orientations and 'context'. p.p.s. if 'nudging' is a "form of design," then what is 'design' a form of? Or are you suggesting it should be seen, as Cameron seems to do, as a primary or 'master category'? And if so, then what is this 'design' opposite to or theoretically against? p.p.p.s. how can 'evolution' be said to 'make choices'? Is 'evolution' somehow a 'conscious' entity or thing? It seems to me that you always simply assume there is a 'first designer' without any 'biological' arugment to make a 'proof.' Perhaps the 'proof' is not important at all and there is a hovering 'apologetic' in your approach that is always ready to make its entry into the 'scientific' discussion...   ________________________________ From: Nucacids <> To: Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2009 5:21:06 PM Subject: [asa] Nudging Evolution As I have been arguing for the hypothesis of front-loading evolution over the years, not too long ago, it has occurred to me that the term “front-load” has the ability to mislead people into thinking I have argued that evolution is a deterministic process, such that everything we currently see around us was programmed to be as it is as a consequence of the originally front-loaded state.  This misperception then causes people to think front-loading is an old, discredited view of evolution.  But that is not the case.   To demonstrate this, I have just run across a design approach that is very, very similar to the approach I talk about and have labeled as “front-loading.”  It’s a social engineering approach that is becoming increasingly popular known as “nudging.”   I outline some of the similarities between nudging human behavior and front-loading evolution here:   Mike __________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Sep 13 23:36:38 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Sep 13 2009 - 23:36:38 EDT