[Critique Group 2] Tomorrow is sub due day for the following Thursday

[Abbie Taylor]

Leonard, you already sent a submission for the 28th, "Legacy." Which 
piece would you like us to critique?



On 9/19/2018 1:59 PM, tuchyner5--- via Group2 wrote:
> Below is my sub.  I think my messages are getting too wordy.
>
> Leonard
> 860  words
>
> Overcoming Our Old Programming
>
> I recently read, in a science fiction story involving artificial 
> intelligence, that “intelligence”//is defined as the ability to 
> override one’s programming. I was blown away by the implications of 
> that definition. The story was not just talking about AI (artificial 
> intelligence), but also of organic intelligence.
>
> All creatures are pre-programmed. For example, some animals are 
> programmed to run away when confronted with certain kinds of danger. 
> When circumstances don’t leave the option of flight, these same 
> animals switch to a different program track, which is one directing 
> them to attack the source of danger such as a predator.Possums are 
> programmed to play dead. It is an automatic response, once the possum 
> is convinced there are no other options.
>
> In the book _Red Badge of Courage_, a young soldier is forced to flee 
> when his fear overtakes him. However, given time to absorb this 
> initial bout with fear, he chooses to override his natural fear 
> programming and respond with fight instead of flight, even though the 
> fear remains.On the other hand, he could have chosen to jump 
> programming tracks and switch from fear to anger. Or maybe he could 
> have come to understand that living as a coward was more threatening 
> to his survival as a worthwhile human being than dying.Did he decide 
> that self esteem was worth dying for? Whether his choice was right or 
> wrong is really not the issue. The point is that he had to overcome 
> his natural reflex programming to make the decision, and that process 
> took real intelligence.
>
> Even among the same species, programming can be specific to the 
> individual. For some humans, anger is the go-to emotion when faced 
> with danger. They are natural berserkers. Flying into a rage can be 
> very effective in a battle for one’s life.Nevertheless, the better 
> choice is to remain calm and maintain control in a battle. Maintaining 
> control means monitoring one’s reflex programming in order to exercise 
> intelligence.
>
> The issue goes deep. There are biological imperatives upon which much 
> of evolution is based. The old programming requires that one needs to 
> respond to aggression with a greater amount of aggression, if he or 
> she has the capacity to do so. The choice of turning the other cheek 
> is not our first programmed reaction to someone who is trying to hurt 
> us, at least not if we are bigger, stronger, faster, richer, or if we 
> have a gun. Ants, chimpanzees, baboons and many other animals go to 
> war.I am not sure that ants have any choice about it. Chimps will run 
> away if they don’t think they can win.Whatever the choice, it is 
> always the one that seems to provide the best outcome for one’s 
> physical preservation or, self aggrandizement.
>
> Those options, which have served us well in the past, are the same 
> ones that are leading to our degradation. How we respond to global 
> warming is an example to illustrate my point. The old programming 
> tells us to get all we can in the short run and not deprive ourselves 
> of physical bounty. After all, in our gatherer-hunter era we were in 
> no danger of overindulgence.Getting all we could get while the getting 
> was good was probably the most effective algorithm. If we used up the 
> resources in any given place, we could always move on. There were 
> plenty of places to move on to. By the time we got back to a used- up 
> place, it most likely would have recovered. Even if we killed off the 
> mastodons, there were still plenty of deer and moose. Some groups of 
> people learned how to live within their resources, by respecting their 
> environments, but there were always the others who did not, and who 
> were willing to take from those who tried to live a more balanced way 
> of life. The takers took and the rest of the world gave, whether they 
> wanted to or not.From the takers’ point of view, there was always more 
> to be taken. The land and oceans were, to their limited perspective, 
> limitless.
>
> We tend to be in denial when faced with evidence that self restraint 
> is to our advantage, in the long run. We have the capacity to see 
> beyond the short run, and through this ability we can override the old 
> directives. Sometimes we do. Most of the time, we don’t. We allow 
> ourselves to be controlled by these ancient programs. When we fail to 
> overcome these old habits, we ultimately suffer for it. History is 
> filled with examples of this truth.
>
> The question is, can we rise above our antiquated, evolutionary 
> programming, and re-write our code?Just knowing that this is an option 
> proves that the code can be re-written. In fact, I believe that the 
> alternative programs are already written and are a part of natural 
> evolution, even if it seems to go against the grain. Old habits are 
> hard to break, despite the fact that newer patterns are accessible to 
> us.Will we, as a species, choose these new patterns which are required 
> in our new, evolving environment?
>
> If so, this would be a good time to do it.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Group2 mailing list
> Group2 at bluegrasspals.com
> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/group2

-- 
Abbie Johnson Taylor, Author http://abbiescorner.wordpress.com 
http://www.abbiejohnsontaylor.com abbietaylor945 at gmail.com Order my new 
memoir at http://www.abbiejohnsontaylor.com/memoir.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/group2/attachments/20180919/3f502fd7/attachment.html>