# fire-evolution

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fire-evolution/13816>\
**Category:** CSG1996\
**Created:** [February 16, 1996, 9:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fire-evolution/13816 "1996-02-16T21:56:25Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 5\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cote\_Remi](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@Cote\_Remi](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Cote_Remi)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 1996, 9:56pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fire-evolution/13816/1 "1996-02-16T21:56:25Z")

</div>

> From MONSIEUR REMI COTE 960216.1630 EST

To [From Bill Powers (960215.1200 MST)]

me: 960215.1300 est --

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is not pessimistic to explain why human are human and  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;distinguish themself so dramaticaly from the rest of living  
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;species. It is the essence of what I get on this list.

You: One of the messages I hope we get across on this list is that  
ALL organisms are control systems, from the amoeba on up.

resp: Are you saying that since we share a control systems architecture  
with other species, we can't distinguish our species from other one?  
Fire allow the human creation (artificial) of an environment where lack  
of control is chronic, without the usual extinction of the species...  
I think that this assertion is worth discussing. What are the consequence  
of this environement on our species? That was the question that bogs  
me. As I sayed, I thougt that it was worth discussing, but I think  
it is better if I join the silencious majority of the list for a while.  
(a while = one day to a few years)

> **···**
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> To Martin Taylor 960215 16:15
> 
> You: I don't know about other readers, but I am confused as to whether  
> you think humans have less or more control over their perceived  
> environment than their pre-linguistic ancestors (pre-fire?.
> 
> me: There was phase. First they get more control. Then the social  
> hiarchy allowed or produced inequity (to understand it you have to  
> put some phaseologic lens). And you are right, I think that language  
> became a necessity, only after the domestication of human by fire  
> (or vice-versa). I should add that I believe (ho! nasty boy) that an  
> organism evolve only if it is a necessity.
> 
> You: I understand that you think that there is more conflict now than then,  
> but I'm not sure why you think so. In what follows, I argue that there  
> may be more intra-species conflict, but not necessarily more conflict  
> overall.
> 
> Me: The point I tried (as in trial) to make was that human were allowed  
> by fire tecknology to put themselve in an environement were they can be  
> a lot more "out of control" than any other animal in their "natural"  
> environement. Human suffering is the worst of all creation. It can  
> go on and on without mean term termination. Go see "Dead man walking"  
> before it is out of "comercial" distribution. Maybe you have seen it...  
> But this is a realy good example of what I wanted to talk about. Human  
> are, by my book, in serious lack of control. They will survive, but  
> unhappy, unless, as Mr. Powers wrote, they learn about their own  
> architecture...
> 
> "Bill: So you see, Boy Remi, that I do not believe it is control that  
> drives people mad: it is ignorance about control that causes the  
> problems."
> 
> You: "Far from the madding crowd"
> 
> Me: Yes I know, I'm ignorant, I got a tiny eggo, what is the author of  
> that book?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/a9adbd/32.png) [@\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Martin_Taylor)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 1996, 11:41pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fire-evolution/13816/2 "1996-02-16T23:41:54Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 960216 18:20]

> MONSIEUR REMI COTE 960216.1630 EST

> Fire allow the human creation (artificial) of an environment where lack  
> of control is chronic, without the usual extinction of the species...  
> I think that this assertion is worth discussing.

> First they get more control. Then the social  
> hiarchy allowed or produced inequity (to understand it you have to  
> put some phaseologic lens).

> The point I tried (as in trial) to make was that human were allowed  
> by fire tecknology to put themselve in an environement were they can be  
> a lot more "out of control" than any other animal in their "natural"  
> environement.

> Human are, by my book, in serious lack of control.

These and other quotes suggest that one of us has a bad misunderstanding.  
I would not say that humans are any more "out of control" than other  
animals. I would say the opposite, that humans can control an enormous  
amount more than can any other animal, when one looks at the environment.  
Whether a human can control more than another animal, when seen from inside,  
is another story, but I would guess that they can.

As Bill P. says, and as Rick Marken is frequently pleased to point out,  
all animals control all the time, and can do no other. I believe that.  
So I have to try to understand what you mean when you say that humans  
"can be" out of control in their technological environment. At present,  
I don't understand.

Let's try a few possibilities: Shall we say that to be "out of control"  
might mean "causing damage that affects the ability of other animals to  
control". In other words, what everyday language might call "reckless."  
I think humans are that. The ability that technology gives us to affect  
the environment over a wide range also means that there is additional  
opportunity for conflict--someone's control is reduced when we use that  
ability. But it's not always clear that this conflict has to happen,  
since the technology also provides us with different environmental degrees  
of freedom to work with, and that helps us to escape conflict. It may be  
true that technology increases conflict and reduces control thereby; it is  
probably true that higher population densities have this effect.

Could "out of control" mean "choosing not to control?" If you mean this,  
I don't think it is true. I think we control more than other animals,  
simply because we have more brain to do it with. If Bill P is right about  
the levels of control, we have more levels than they do, and we control  
in more variable ways (sometimes this turns up in statements such as  
"humans are the most adaptable animals").

You seem to see social dominance as illustrating loss of control. But most  
social animals have dominance hierarchies. We are perfectly normal in that  
respect. The fact that you are controlling a perception of pleasing the  
dominant animal cannot be very different if you are a wolf or if you are  
an assembly-line worker. You just don't do some things you might do if  
you were a solo orang-utang, or the factory owner.

Another possible meaning for "out of control" might be due to a  
misunderstanding of control. As Bill P has pointed out, almost all the  
controlling we do is quite unnoticed. Things are as they should be: we  
stand, we walk, we pick things up, we eat, we enjoy the company of our  
mate, ... Only when things aren't as we would have them and we are not  
doing very well at making them better do we notice control happening.  
Not observing control is different from not being in control. I don't  
know if this was your meaning.

> Human suffering is the worst of all creation.

How do you know?

I'm inclined to agree with you, on purely abstract grounds, but I don't  
know how you could get evidence for this claim. If it is true, it's probably  
because humans can imagine the future, and perceive the contrast between  
a possible "good" future and the probable "bad" future, as well as noting  
the discrepancy between what the present state is and what they would want  
it to be. I don't know if other animals can do the future-imagining that  
leads to a lot of misery.

Anyway, once we clear up what you mean by "out of control" we may be able  
to deal sensibly with your conjectures about why this is the case and  
the consequences of and remedies for it.

Martin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cote\_Remi](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/b3f665/32.png) [@Cote\_Remi](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Cote_Remi)\
**Post date:** [February 17, 1996, 10:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fire-evolution/13816/3 "1996-02-17T22:09:38Z")

</div>

> MONSIEUR REMI COTE 960217.1700 EST

Reply to: [Martin Taylor 960216 18:20]

You:  
"...that humans can control an enormous amount more than can any other  
animal, when one looks at the environment."

Me:  
If you mean that a social elite can control the destiny of a majority  
of consenting follower (manufacturing consent), then I agree with you.

But what about Tchernobill, environmentally sick schools (for details  
contact the Practical Allergy Research Foundation at 1-800-787-8780),  
organ "donation" from executed political prisoner in China, atrocity  
of war, iraqui soldiers burried alive. Who is the evil in control here.

You:  
As Bill P. says, and as Rick Marken is frequently pleased to point out,  
all animals control all the time, and can do no other.

Me:  
I thought that they mean that all living organism are engaged in control  
process. But that doesn't mean that they achieve control all the  
time, that: "Reference - input = 0" all the time. otherwise we wouldn't  
need to be alive at all.

What I am saying is that human are in bigger stress, bigger discrepancy,  
"Reference - input" of human in artificial environement \> "Reference -  
input" of animal in natural environement. And I must add to be precise  
that I am pointing to higher level of control loop.

You:  
So I have to try to understand what you mean when you say that humans  
"can be" out of control in their technological environment. At present,  
I don't understand.

Me:  
Technological environement allow to be in big "Reference - input" all  
the time, it mean bigger mean of discrepancy, or perturbation. And the  
problem is not realy with human, it is with their environement.  
Fire is an environemental variable. Goudsblom theory is about the  
consequence of this radicaly new environement, that was absent from  
rainforest.

You:  
But it's not always clear that this conflict has to happen,  
since the technology also provides us with different environmental degrees  
of freedom to work with, and that helps us to escape conflict.

Me:  
Try to escape economy, technology, cause-effect determinism in science,  
try to escape all the other illusion of control. Tell me about the time  
you were late at an important appointment because your car let you down  
in the middle of the highway, tell me that you were in control then.  
We are more and more dependant from technology, since the beginning of  
humanity we are chained to technological environement. I believe that  
we were domesticated by technology, but of course I cannot proove I am  
right. An interesting thing to do for you is to proove me wrong.

You:  
I think we control more than other animals, simply because we have more  
brain to do it with.

Me:  
I basically believe that a mutation or a reorganisation of gene is  
selected only if it is a necessity to survive, if it give an advantage  
over competition to get more chance of survival. There is no need  
to be an Einstein in the rain forest(chimp) or in the sea (dolphin).  
But there is one with a technologicaly contaminated environment.  
In other word, the slope of brain evolution in mamals is lower prior  
to the domestication of fire, 1,500,000 years ago.

You:  
You seem to see social dominance as illustrating loss of control. But most  
social animals have dominance hierarchies.

Me:  
If I were aloud (by social etiquette) to engage in ritual choregraphy to  
"negociate" my place in hierarchy with my boss and other teacher ( I am  
working in an adult school) I would certainly be less stressed than if I  
could only hear rhumor about someone talking in bad terms about me in my back.  
Animals dominance as nothing to do with psychological violence (too common  
example) endure by women "who care too much about their child to let go  
their family". Psychological distress find no common measure in other  
species. Here I should repeat to make myself clear, It is not the brain  
that allow more psychological suffering, it is the environement.

You:  
I don't know if other animals can do the future-imagining that  
leads to a lot of misery.  
Anyway, once we clear up what you mean by "out of control" we may be able  
to deal sensibly with your conjectures about why this is the case and  
the consequences of and remedies for it.

Me:  
It is the environement that lead to misery, so basicaly there is no  
"viable" remedies. But the fire-evolution can help in putting human  
output in perspective. Looking for controlled variable is a detective  
work where this theory could help. It also help to understand why  
people can get away easily from worrying. Basically, I belive that  
human control system are not design to face technological environement.  
It is only a belief, not a fact, and my belief evolve.

> **···**
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> To [Bill Powers (960217.0100 MST)]
> 
> Remi Cote 960216.1630 EST --
> 
> You:  
> (a) Fire has been present in the environment for all species. But  
> only the human species, as far as I know, has been able to create it on  
> purpose. So what made the difference was not fire, but the ability to  
> control it (among many other things), which resides in the organism, not  
> in the environment.
> 
> Me: Are you saying that if we had evolve in a waterworld (like dolphin)  
> we would have created fire anyway? Or you suppose that we would have  
> found a tool as powerful as fire in a waterworld? I found this  
> supposition hard to support.
> 
> You:  
> (b) I disagree with you about lack of control. In fact, you seem to  
> contradict yourself, speaking both about lack of control and too much  
> control. If too much control leads to a lack of control, then we are  
> back to NOT having too much control, so the problem disappears, doesn't  
> it? A lack of control can't be the same as too much control, can it?
> 
> Me:  
> These thing are hard to explain, it is not like PCT (joke). Let say that  
> for the first million and a half years, fire = party. But that party  
> almost destroy the planet. 40,000 years ago some genius invent agriculture  
> and fisheries. We save ourselve from extinction with more technology.  
> We escape from extinction. But are we happy as a species? You can choose  
> not asking youself these question.
> 
> For my own benifit I will rephrase my assertion. Too much control can  
> bring to extinction in the final phase. If all lion were equipped with  
> laser beam alligned to their vision and triggered by artificial vision of  
> any eatable living organism, lion are bound to extinction. Of course, in  
> the first phase, it will be party, but laser beam (much more powerful than  
> fire) are too powerful for the environement.
> 
> You:  
> I have heard similar views about technology from others(...)
> 
> Me:  
> Your text about politic, inequity and conflict was great.  
> But evolution-fire wasn't introduce by me just to make an  
> activist point. It was to make a psychological point.  
> When you want to interpret human output, you have to consider  
> his environement. The book from Csickzentmihaly "flow" and other  
> work, deals with higher hierarchy, and they are easier to understand  
> in the view of control-theory and fire-evolution theory.
> 
> One question that pop-up in group therapy: "Why do I feel disconected  
> from myself?"
> 
> Evolution-fire can answer a bit to these question. It can tell  
> me about dependance, about the fact that the environement allow  
> us to be potato coach and miss our last life ( for those who had  
> previous ones). Fire evolution help me understand seem to be  
> slow learner.
> 
> You:  
> I see this as our greatest social problem, the one we must solve if the  
> species is to survive. It is a problem in the misuse of control, which I  
> think arises from a lack of understanding of control.
> 
> Me:  
> We have the same conclusion, not the same premise. All I add to your  
> assertion is that fire allowed a species to evolve at a point were  
> understanding of control become necessary for survival.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------  
> Monsieur Remi
> 
> Every comment to me and my quest are perceive and interpreted as  
> gift, It really feel like Christmas.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Leach1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/848f3c/32.png) [@Bill\_Leach1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Leach1)\
**Post date:** [February 18, 1996, 5:46am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fire-evolution/13816/4 "1996-02-18T05:46:02Z")

</div>

\<[Bill Leach 960217.20:37 U.S. Eastern Time Zone]

> MONSIEUR REMI COTE 960217.1700 EST

Here then is another gift (at least I hope that you see it that way).

Martin:

> "...that humans can control an enormous amount more than can any other  
> animal, when one looks at the environment."

Remi:

> If you mean that a social elite can control the destiny of a majority  
> of consenting follower (manufacturing consent), then I agree with you.

> But what about ...

I find it hard to even conceive of disagreement with Martin's statement.  
I don't question that it is possible to find examples of poor human  
control both in the individual instance and in "group" performance but  
"that humans \_can\_ control (and have) an enormous amount more than can  
any other animal..." seem a certain enough statement to be a "fundamental  
truth" sort of thing.

Even your assertions with respect to atrocities hardly refutes Martin's  
statement. That people often control for things that seem to others to  
be "evil" is more of a claim in support of his assertion than in  
opposition. Presumably, there is no such controllable concept as "evil"  
anywhere else in the living beings world except for humans.

Martin:

> As Bill P. says, and as Rick Marken is frequently pleased to point out,  
> all animals control all the time, and can do no other.

Remi:

> I thought that they mean that all living organism are engaged in control  
> process. But that doesn't mean that they achieve control all the  
> time, that: "Reference - input = 0" all the time. otherwise we wouldn't  
> need to be alive at all.

Particularly good observation and yes I have no doubt that Martin will  
agree with you that while all living things control that does not mean  
that they are necessarily successfully controlling all perceptions for  
which there is a reference.

Remi:

> What I am saying is that human are in bigger stress, bigger discrepancy,  
> "Reference - input" of human in artificial environement \> "Reference -  
> input" of animal in natural environement. And I must add to be precise  
> that I am pointing to higher level of control loop.

To start with humans are \_not\_ in an "artificial" environment anymore  
than a bird in its' nest. However, I infer from your statement that you  
mean somehow that mankind's greater control over the environment is  
somehow causing greater control failure for humanity.

The concept that you are expressing is "foundational" to the  
Malthusian's, the more militant "Environmentalists", and about all of the  
"Pop-psychologists". Various medical researchers often conclude in their  
report summaries that our "technologically based environment" is  
"causing" increases in \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ (fill in the blank but common ones are  
heart disease, cancer and mental disorders) while ignoring that human life  
expectancy has continually increased with technology for as far back in  
history as we have been able to determine life expectancy values.

Additionally, "the good old days" were rarely, if ever, as good as the  
"romantic" claims for them assert. It is, I think, doubtlessly true that  
several thousand years ago, "life was much simpler". Indeed, it was much  
simpler a hundred or more years ago -- it was even simpler yet if you  
were the slave and not the slave owner (not necessarily more pleasent but  
clearly simpler)!

Maybe your assertion that "animals" are under less stress than humans is  
true but personally I suspect that the opposite true (except maybe in the  
case of the typical pet -- Garfield comes to mind). Now how do we find  
out who is "right"? As far as I know we don't even have an objective,  
quantifiable measure for comparitive levels of human stress much less a  
measure that could also be applied to some animal.

Personally, I have been what I believe would be "classed" as severely  
depressed for over six months (sometimes unable to "do" anything, even  
eat for two days or more). I am I "more stressed" than an Elk in the  
northern Rockies that can't find anything to eat? How many "wild"  
animals die of "old age"?

As far as "higher level of control loop", both Martin and Bill P. made  
reference to the idea that the human system probably has mutiple levels  
above the highest of any of the animals. I would suggest that if we  
could compare human control success with animal control success only in  
those areas that animals perceive and control that human control success  
would be see to be vastly superiour. Above those levels, the comparison  
is absurd since animals do not control at all.

Remi:

> Technological environement allow to be in big "Reference - input" all  
> the time, it mean bigger mean of discrepancy, or perturbation. And the  
> problem is not realy with human, it is with their environement.  
> Fire is an environemental variable. Goudsblom theory is about the  
> consequence of this radicaly new environement, that was absent from  
> rainforest.

I'm sorry Remi, this is just plain "bull"! It is "bull" \_because\_ it  
specifically excludes the \_only\_ thing does matter... Humans ARE the  
environment with respect to the claimed problem! I almost feel like  
asking for a "chanting background" from Rick Marken here -- something  
like a chorus of "The environment does NOT control, du da, du da, the  
environment does not control, du da, di du da day"! With respect to  
final results, the environment rarely even has much influence much less  
"control"!

Remi:

> Try to escape economy, technology, cause-effect determinism in science,  
> try to escape all the other illusion of control. Tell me about the time  
> you were late at an important appointment because your car let you down  
> in the middle of the highway, tell me that you were in control then.  
> We are more and more dependant from technology, since the beginning of  
> humanity we are chained to technological environement. I believe that  
> we were domesticated by technology, but of course I cannot proove I am  
> right. An interesting thing to do for you is to proove me wrong.

Tom Bourbon would be a particularly skilled person to deal with this...  
I believe that there are some people that have "escaped economy and  
technology" but most of us would not last a month if left to "gentle  
Mother nature" without any of our technology.

Your "car example" is, I think, a better example of what Bill P. has  
expressed several times than it is an example to support what I believe  
that you are claiming. Technology is neutral, it is neither "good" nor  
"bad" -- you can make Atomic Bombs and blow people up or you can make  
electricity. What perceptions PEOPLE try to control and how they control  
their perceptions is possibly the ONLY thing that matters!

Your statement: "I believe that we were domesticated by technology, ..."  
is a claim that our environment CAUSED us to be as we are! That is about  
as "pure" an S-R claim as I have seen on the net. The statement is  
diametrically opposed to what PCT asserts.

Had you said something like "Some people have USED power made available  
through the use of technology to limit or restrict the range and/or  
ability of other people to control their own perceptions." then I doubt  
you would find much argument on the net (particular if you assert that  
this action has not necessarily been carried out with the specific  
\_intention\_ of "controlling others").

Remi:

> I basically believe that a mutation or a reorganisation of gene is  
> selected only if it is a necessity to survive, if it give an advantage  
> over competition to get more chance of survival.

I think I am begining to feel more like Bill Powers on this one! It is  
(axiomatically true) that any mutation or even reorganizational change  
(that is not subsequently changed) that results in an organism dying  
"early" (specifically before procreation in the case of mutation) is  
probably not going to be one of the "selected". I would like to claim  
that your assertion is rather obviously absurd. Changes occur, they  
might or might NOT affect "surviability". If they do, they might  
seriously degrade, slightly degrade, slightly enhance or significantly  
enhance surviability. Also, they might not change "net surviability" at  
all but only change how the organism controls its' environment.

The concept of "natural selection" suggests that any degradation of  
surviability "skills" \_reduces\_ the probability that such changes will be  
sustained in the species (with the reverse also asserted to be true)  
given that "hardship" of sufficient magnitude and duration occurs. There  
are those that assert that "competition" will ALWAYS result in the  
"selection" occuring but as far as I know, that is not a particularly  
well supported assertion.

> There is no need to be an Einstein in the rain forest(chimp) or in the  
> sea (dolphin). But there is one with a technologicaly contaminated  
> environment. In other word, the slope of brain evolution in mamals is  
> lower prior to the domestication of fire, 1,500,000 years ago.

I HAVE to ask!! What in the hell is the perception are you controlling  
("technologically \_\_CONTAMINATED\_\_ environment")?

Back to your regularly scheduled broadcast...  
Given that most chimps are probably not trying to build cyclotrons I  
suspect that you are right -- no Einstein's though I question that we  
human observers would recognize a chimp equivalent to Einstein if there  
were such a thing.

It also sounds like you are saying that when man "tamed" fire, sitting  
in front of same CAUSED the brain to develop (the heat maybe?). This  
might be an excellent place for Avery to "jump in" but I would suggest  
that maybe as man desired to better control his environment, one of the  
results was an increase in "mental" capability along with the success in  
more complex control.

I seriously do not know if "natural selection" can be shown to have been  
a probable process. I have serious doubts on that one because fertility  
rates have had a consistent INVERSE relationship to technological level  
(though maybe longevity is an overwhelming factor).

Martin:

> You seem to see social dominance as illustrating loss of control. But  
> most social animals have dominance hierarchies.

Remi:

> If I were aloud (by social etiquette) to engage in ritual choregraphy to  
> "negociate" my place in hierarchy with my boss and other teacher ( I am  
> working in an adult school) I would certainly be less stressed than if I  
> could only hear rhumor about someone talking in bad terms about me in my  
> back. Animals dominance as nothing to do with psychological violence  
> (too common example) endure by women "who care too much about their  
> child to let go their family". Psychological distress find no common  
> measure in other species. Here I should repeat to make myself clear, It  
> is not the brain that allow more psychological suffering, it is the  
> environement.

Think about what you are saying here. In the first place (feline  
psychologists notwithstanding) what little "we know" about animal  
psychology is at least 99% projection -- that is projection of how we  
humans feel about situation upon animals that are, in our opinion,  
experiencing situations we define from our perspective.

Secondly, in the "animal kingdom" it is not at all unusual for an animal  
to not only be denied a second mortgage but even loose its' life as a  
result of loosing one of these "ritual dances". Of course then I suppose  
it is reasonable to acknowledge that the animal is not particularly  
"stressed" (at least after it dies -- that we know of anyway).

The "feminist" problem is a combination of "male dominance" (male  
attempts to control females) and perception on the part of females  
(seeing attempts at control where none exist). Both of these aspect are  
the same problem -- failure to understand that ALL humans are control  
systems and what that implies.

Once again, unless I am completely misunderstanding what you are trying  
to say, your last sentence is utterly false.

Martin:

> I don't know if other animals can do the future-imagining that leads  
> to a lot of misery. Anyway, once we clear up what you mean by "out of  
> control" we may be able to deal sensibly with your conjectures about  
> why this is the case and the consequences of and remedies for it.

Remi:

> It is the environement that lead to misery, so basicaly there is no  
> "viable" remedies.

Contrary to what the media tells us (and non-incumbent politicians during  
election years especially), the percentage of people dying at any age in  
any position of the economic "ladder" is lower in more technologically  
advanced countries than in less technologically advanced countries. The  
percentage of (and indeed even the number of, regardless of relative  
populations) people starving to death is drastically lower in  
technologically advanced countries.

Now I admit that the number of primitive African's all stressed out  
because they can't buy little Sally a new pair of Reboks (or worse,  
bought Sally a pair of Reboks on credit but now can't pay for them) is  
probably not only less than even in rural Canada but probably... zero.

Are you trying to tell me that Monsieur and Madam Smith are "all stressed  
out" because Reboks exist?! Their environment MADE them spend money they  
can not afford to spend?

> But the fire-evolution can help in putting human output in perspective.  
> Looking for controlled variable is a detective work where this theory  
> could help. It also help to understand why people can get away easily  
> from worrying. Basically, I belive that human control system are not  
> design to face technological environement. It is only a belief, not a  
> fact, and my belief evolve.

Well at least we can agree that looking for controlled variables is a  
good idea!

I personally think that theories such as "fire-evolution" are worse than  
no help at all. Blaming human problems upon anything else other than  
human failure to understand control theory and its' implications only  
serves to divert badly needed attention to useless efforts.

Every person is a control system. Every person is always trying to  
control their own perceptions. Every person MUST control certain of  
their perceptions or they will die. These statement are pretty well  
beyond argument.

It is also likely that for an individual to have the feelings that we  
call happiness, contentment, or at peace with one's self require some  
minimum overall control effectiveness. No matter what the environmental  
conditions, if an individual's control effectiveness is above this  
minimum the individual is content, if it is not then the individual is  
not content (regardless of wealth or possessions).

You also make a rather inconsistent remark that people can get away  
easily from worrying. I do agree that most people (myself included)  
worry a great deal about things that they should not worry about. As the  
"pop-psychology" people like to say (correctly I believe), if you are  
worrying about something you can not influence (or control), prepare as  
best you can and go on; If you are worrying about something you can  
influence (or control), then do so and go on; Remember, most worrying is  
about things that never happen. OTOH, there are indeed plenty of things  
"worried about" by many people that are serious matters, that actually  
are largely beyond their control or even influence -- these are almost  
always matters that involve the "will" of other control systems. Such  
matters are not easily solved unless the other control systems both  
recognize their own impact upon the problem and are willing to alter the  
manner in which they are controlling their own perceptions.

Technology is a "null" issue except that it is through the application of  
technology alone that it is possible now to supply the basic needs for  
survival for every human -- if only the will existed to do so. The  
ability to do this has only been physically possible for a relatively few  
years.

Remi:

> Are you saying that if we had evolve in a waterworld (like dolphin)  
> we would have created fire anyway? Or you suppose that we would have  
> found a tool as powerful as fire in a waterworld? I found this  
> supposition hard to support.

Bill's answer to this might be interesting to read. I doubt that he was  
thinking anything of the kind at the time. I would suggest that we just  
plain don't know what the necessary minimum conditions are to allow a  
creature that can almost overwhem his environment to develop. It would  
seem that Earth and Humans are the only environment and species that we  
have for an example. Maybe with a few more planets containing "advanced"  
organisms we might know what some of the absolute limits might be (if  
any).

Of course man did not "create" fire so it is a pretty reasonable  
assumption that an advanced "sea creature" would probably not have a  
"fire based" society (though man has and does use fire underwater). Is  
there anything inherent in an underwater existance that precludes  
developing advanced control capabilities over one's environment? I don't  
know and do not accept that just because such a capability has never  
evolved (that we know of) as any sort of "proof". I doubt that land  
based mammals such as humans would be particularly adept at identifying  
what limits might and might not exist in such an environment anyway.

Remi:

> Your text about politic [Bill Powers of course], inequity and conflict  
> was great. But evolution-fire wasn't introduce by me just to make an  
> activist point. It was to make a psychological point. When you want to  
> interpret human output, you have to consider his environement. The book  
> from Csickzentmihaly "flow" and other work, deals with higher hierarchy,  
> and they are easier to understand in the view of control-theory and  
> fire-evolution theory.

When you "want to interpret human output" you might well be advised to  
define it. If you mean "output" in the PCT sense, then you are  
definately correct... you must consider the environment but you still  
will not make any sense of the output until you have some idea of the  
controlled variable too.

I am afraid that all I see in "fire-evolution theory" is a lot of smoke!  
People either do or do not recognize that in controlling and attempting  
to control their own perceptions they may affect the ability of others to  
control their perceptions too. It does not matter whether you are  
jogging down a narrow lane in a part or piloting the Queen Mary in a  
narrow channel -- in either case what matters is what perceptions you  
choose to control and what perceptions you choose not to control. We  
have always had the option to do either greater "good" or greater "harm"  
with every advance in technology and the choice has never belonged to the  
technology itself and never will. The day that someone can  
dispassionately and objectively assert that technology is making moral  
and ethical decisions - on its' own - is the day that we will declare as  
Picard did with respect to Cmdr Data: "We are searching for new  
life-forms... well there he sits!"

> One question that pop-up in group therapy: "Why do I feel disconected  
> from myself?"

I honestly have to say that I don't even know what the question means  
much less have a suggestion as to why (and I am presuming that there is  
no physical malfunction).

Merry Christmas!

-bill

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/a9adbd/32.png) [@\_Martin\_Taylor](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Martin_Taylor)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 1996, 6:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/fire-evolution/13816/5 "1996-02-19T18:28:34Z")

</div>

[Martin Taylor 960219 12:15]

> MONSIEUR REMI COTE 960217.1700 EST

I think I finally have some glimmering of what you are getting at.

There is a confusion between two senses of "being in control." In one  
sense, the sense used by most contributors to CSGnet, it means something  
like "affecting the environment in a way that attempts to bring a perception  
nearer its reference." But as you use it, it means "successfully affecting  
the environment so that a perception \_is\_ near its reference."

When you get criticized for saying that something or somebody is "out of  
control" or that the environment affects control, it is the first meaning  
that the critic considers, not the meaning I think you intend.

If my new understanding of your meaning is correct, then it is possible to  
go ahead and make sense of your argument. But we have to be careful about  
the meaning of "control." I don't mean the problem Bill P has had that  
caused him to use words like "spontefaction." I mean the difference  
between using output to affect perception in the appropriate direction,  
on the one hand, and being successful in keeping perception near reference,  
on the other. For this posting, I'll try to use "attempted control" and  
"successful control" respectively, but if I slip, please take "control"  
to mean "attempted control." "Attempted control" may also be "successful  
control" or it may not, but "successful control" always has to involve  
"attempted control." The mere fact that a perception exists in an unchanging  
environment does not imply that there is attempted control.

All attempted control involves side-effects, effects on the environment that  
do not influence the controlled perception. Those effects may influence  
some other controlled perception, which may be a perception in some other  
person or animal. Those effects are disturbances, which make it harder  
for the attenpted control of that second perception to be successful.

One can think of a "range of perturbation" associated with the side effects  
of attempted control. This is a very vague term, meaning roughly something  
like a product of how many other perceptions are disturbed and how strong  
the disturbing influence is on each--in other words, how much trouble the  
side-effects of attempted control are to other control systems in the world.  
And when those other control systems attempt control, their side-effects  
may come back to disturb the attempted control of the first system. If  
this "range of perturbation" is large enough, none of the control systems  
may be successful, leading in your words to an "out of control" situation.  
The group of systems can get into a positive feedback runaway condition  
in which worsening success in control in one place leads to worsening  
success elsewhere and from there to even worse success in the first place.

Notice that I am not talking about classic "conflict" in which two different  
control systems attempt to control through highly correlated environmental  
variables. Such conflicts are in addition to the side effects, and have  
their own dynamics that Kent McLelland is studying.

One factor leading to an increased "range of perturbation" is an increase in  
the use of energy for attempted control. If it takes a certain amount of  
energy to achieve a certain degree of success in control, then the use of  
any more energy is likely to be at least in part dissipated in side-effects.  
The amount of perturbation of other attempted control systems will probably be  
increased, reducing their degree of success.

Another factor leading to an increased "range of perturbation" is an  
increase in population density. When more control systems are there to be  
influenced by the side effects of any one attempted control, there is  
less overall success in control, and more of the side-effects of those  
other attempted controls are likely to be reflected back to the originator.  
At some level, none of the control systems will be successful.

Enhanced technology, which increases the success of control in the  
material environment, increases both these effects. And that, I think, is  
the source of your concern with "fire."

The above analysis, if you can call such a vague discussion "analysis,"  
takes no account of reorganization. When hierarchic control systems'  
attempted control doesn't succeed, the control systems reorganize. With  
luck, they learn again how to control, successfully, up to a point. They  
may not be attempting to control the same perceptions as before, but the  
important "intrinsic variables" come once more to be controlled (or else  
the organism dies).

All the control hierarchies in the society are reorganizing in this way,  
and if there exists a way of reducing the reflection of disturbing influences  
among them, the society will come to consist of control systems that  
have a discernable organization. It might be slave-owners and slaves,  
or tolerant democrats, or religious fundamentalists, or whatever. But  
one will not attempt control of something that tends to have side effects  
that disturb another, if the society is to be stable.

Is a stable society, in this sense, possible?

I don't know.

Does this address the problem you have been trying to raise?

Martin