I sympathize with you Jason but basically the facts are the facts. Aside from the interesting question you raise about panspermia I am saying that collectively as a species we fit the definition of a parasite but we could mutate (evolve) into a more *symbiotic* and *sympathetic* species.

Most but not all life on Earth is parasitic, about 80% of species but you misunderstand the concept if you suggest it involves reciprocity of some kind, it doesn't.

Parasites are pure exploiters. Symbiosis can include parasites under some strategies but basically symbiosis implies a quid pro quo or reciprocity but strict parasitism doesn't.

Parasitism IS normal, what isn't necessarily *normal* (whatever that is really) is when one super parasite become the dominant life on the planet so much so that it becomes the dictator of all that lives and dies.

We are superseding the ecology of Natural Selection with Human Selection and we aren't even doing it rationally or particularly intentionally. It is a consequence of our powerful technology and still growing yet already very large population.

We are destroying habitat and supplanting species that cannot be replaced. We are doing so faster than we will be able to repair the damage. All we can do is someday stop and attempt to both fix as much damage as we can and make the effort to redefine the future paradigm for all Selection into what might be described as *Rational Selection*.

There is one precedence for this in nature and it is a powerful one. Sometime in the Precambrian period a protozoa was infected by a bacteria and instead of struggling to a destructive conclusion between parasite and host they achieved a balance that resulted in one of the most important mutations possible, the Krebs cycle.

That little bacteria gave up its independence and became eternally dependent on the host cell and the host absorbed the bacteria and shelters it to its advantage even though to this day that bacterial like object retains its own genome but has been stripped of most of its original form.

Today we call them mitochondria and chloroplasts and without them multicellular life is impossible because the cellular specialization and energy requirements of complex life forms require a level of energy that single celled organisms by themselves are incapable of.

In a manner of speaking we are facing the same type of dilemma with respect to life as a whole and our specific needs as a species (and individuals). If we can find a manner to integrate in a healthy way with all life then perhaps a paradigm shift becomes possible creating a powerful new vector for evolution to embark on.

To me that is big part of what I envision the Singularity idea to represent though I don't buy the timing of most proposals. I do however agree that trends in this direction are a part of history not just the future.

I suggest also that from an evolutionary perspective rather than strictly a technologically based transition we can also see this as reflective of a paradigm shift from predominantly genetic based Natural Selection to a more complex integrated memetic based Human Selection, which is able to engineer genetics based upon on memetic analysis and imperatives.

It is also about our own integration with the potentially artificial life of Artificial Intelligence and the potential for the creation of vastly greater than human intelligence, or the *uplift* of humanity to that more mature phase you refer to.

Jason you are arguing with stereotypes not me. Intelligence is both good and evil and evil. It is a human trait associated specifically with intelligence. It ain't evil if it is not an intentional act and that requires intelligence.

You really need to answer the question I asked rather than either dancing around it or putting your response in a purely anthropomorphic perspective. BTW doing so proves my point.

None of your facetious retorts have any bearing on what I consider an optimal solution either but they are consistent with those that want a Butlerian Jihad and those include many Christian fundamentalists, Neofeudalists and Islamic fundamentalists. In fact didn't Pol Pot and Mao's wife already try the *Cultural revolution* approach that almost wiped out the intelligentsia's of their countries for a while?

China seems to be recovering fast. In fact that is the real problem with such draconian measures as they usually have exactly the opposite of the intended effect. By that standard maybe even you would approve of such intellectualcide.

Now who is being facetious ehh?

First of all I never said intelligence is or isn't THE answer and of course I consider it a *part* of the answer but it is not by itself enough. It never has been and that is a part of the dilemma too.

The Greeks idealized Mind AND Body, there is a physical aspect that accompanies the power of intelligence. But all of this simply sidesteps the conundrum of this thread and the counter point I presented.

It is all well and good to say that humans CAN be *good for the planet* and other species but the problem is that *ON BALNACE* we haven't been. You may not like that fact but it is a fact nonetheless. The future MIGHT be different but if the past is prologue it is not likely to be without a dramatic change in human character.

However changing human character is exactly the kind of opportunity that true *intelligence* offers.

All you really did though for most of your post is revert to the usual rationalizations for the parasitic behavior that humans all too commonly exhibit and claim that *me first* and self preservation is justified by Natural Selection. Well that just happens to be Social Darwinism not natural Selection.

As to the destruction part all I need to do is produce the myriad of articles that outline the impact of humanity on biodiversity, water, air and land quality, not to mention the real majority of one another. The measure of fitness you are proposing is not set by an *environmental standard*, it is by a standard predicated on OUR specific species demands.

Is it food?

We will breed it.

If it competes with our food we destroy it.

If you expect the Singularity to represent a step up for intelligence then it might behoove you to act intelligently and see beyond such myopic values. I have no more faith in technology than I do in mythological beings. And frankly humans are losing what faith I once had in them too. But at least I can understand wanting to have faith in my fellow humans. Lately however they just aren't generally acting in a way that merits much trust.

BTW this is specious counter point

>>>>The numbers of Species that have gone extinct since the beginning of time are uncountable. Humans had no part in 99% of those species dieing off. Evolution has its own standards for right and wrong. <<<<

It is quite relevant to my claim. I was not referring to all the species that became extinct over the hundreds of millions of years of evolution I was referring the ones that have gone extinct just since the beginning of the industrial age. That impact alone rivals any great extinction in the last tens of millions of years.

And unlike the *mindless* catastrophe of an asteroid impact, vulcanism, pandemic or glaciation, this was the result of our so called *intelligence*, which on its face does not demonstrate that we are so intelligent since most of those extinctions were either from over hunting and grazing that led to the local civilization collapse, intentional *specicide* like the case of the *plains buffalo* for political objectives or they were the result of willful negligence greed and outright ignorance as in the case of the passenger pigeon.

Again not much proof of that nearly divine intelligence you claim I should be in awe of.

>>>Call it a Deus ex Machina, a Singularity, or just simply Grace. But once the baton is passed, fear, war, poverty, and disease will be artifacts. This is the future we should hope for, so this is the future I choose to speak about. <<<

Do you realize just how naive this kind of thing sounds?

More god damned promises of paradise on Earth from some mythical savior. Screw that.

It is time to realize that we humans screwed up the environment and it is in our power to fix it. We don't need super powers to accomplish that even if we get them in the process of doing the real work to solve the problems. We don't need anymore *savior* talk. It just promotes individual weakness and complacency.

It is the corrolary to the *WWJD* crowd that after asking that and beating a professor of science then say in their best apocalyptic voice; "don't worry about all dem problems. Our savior will fix them too after He comes back."

It is just another christian memefection perverting science into a Manifest Destiny doctrine for technocracy.

BTW I am not against building GAIA (Global Artificially Intelligent Awareness). I am just trying to ensure that I am a real contributing part of it and the result truly is *Friendly* to more than just humans.

Remember this thread is about the threat of a Butlerian Jihad and you forgot one real imminent threat. Under a true oppressive Neo-Fuedalist society the control of information is also the route to real autocratic power.

Just why do you think politics makes such strange bedfellows anyway?