On 18/09/06, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"David Gerard" wrote
> And almost all of our processes are quick hacks
someone thought would
> be a good idea at the time, and they're usually modified by putting
> hacks on hacks on hacks, building into a rococo fractal mosaic of
> prescriptions.
Which is a pretty good description of how evolution
works, on a conventional model. _Especially_ the bit that the thing designed for one issue
gets commandeered and adapted for another.
I think we can take comfort from the way the conventional model of evolution also has
this to say: it's smarter than you. (No, I don't mean David G, I mean this is a
more effective problem solving attack than a priori plans.)
The analogy to evolution is remarkably appropriate in that the only
"aim" evolution has is reproduction and spreading. Our swathes of
process certainly do this, c.f. [[m:instruction creep]].
Whether this is what we actually want them to do in order to write an
encyclopedia is another matter entirely.
(Kudzu was invented to supply similes for process.)
- d.