“Forgetting plays a central role in human decision-making,” he argues. “It lets us act in time, cognizant of, but not shackled by, past events.” Not quite. If you forget something then by the very nature of forgetting you cannot be cognizant of the past. Memory is important. Learning the lessons of past mistakes is something we have failed to do for thousands of years. Digital memory makes it easy to review past history and keep the lessons of mistakes past clearly in mind so that they can be accounted for this time around. More importantly, this new ability to "remember" is vitally important for citizens. It is very easy for leaders and elected officials to gloss over past misdeeds. But now they can be held to account. Digital memory puts power in the hands of individual people and this is a very good thing. It is true that one can be shackled by fear if one attempts to live in the past. But memory itself is not responsible for fear. Only the human heart and ignorance of the facts bring fear. Memory then serves to shine a light on the road traveled. It helps us to get our bearings on our current position in life. And helps us to define our next starting point for new action.

While it is commendable to suggest we should correctly recompense the many hard working individuals in the media industries which have been impacted by the file sharing pheomenon, it is erroneous to assume that the movement to tackle this with countermeasures has been implemented for their benefit. At the end of the day, the pressure on the Government is being put forward by the corporations who have seen significant dents in their profits simply because they were too greedy in the first instance to be willing to ride the wave of file sharing in the first place. The whole crux of this issue lies with the principal concern these corporations have. This is not a concern for their staff or their artists' general wellbeing. This is ultimately a concern over their profits. The Governments, who ultimately benefit from the taxation of the end products, are simply acting to secure their own revenues as well. They'll stand behind the shield of more noble reasons, but never acknowledge any reasonable counterarguments from the other side of the fence. Money does make the world go round, unfortunately. But it is possible that there has been some net benefit to global society as a whole on account of the greater proliferation and dissemination of great works of art, across several media platforms. Regardless of right or wrong, legal or illegal, this file sharing business has been the catalyst for a great wave of change throughout the entire world. Which, as an evolving and tech integrated species, can only be a good thing for us in the long run.

Analogy: a smoker is found to have an early lung cancer. It is pointless to debated whether he should either (a) stop smoking or (b) have the cancer excised. He must do both. We must Both decarbonise our economy (which will itself deliver a much wanted boost to the world economy by creating jobs in energy conservation and renewables)and sequester the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's a bit like walking along and chewing gum at the same time. Some cannot do this, but most, with a little application, find that they can.

Not only is it too soon to celebrate, we are now plunging headlong into economic catastrophe in the west, leaving the reins of true power firmly grasped in the hands of the architects of this misery - the banks.

Between the Darwinists, the Neo-Darwinists and the Not-Neo-Darwinists Anymore undercutting each other, it is only a matter of time before the classic concept of minerals-to-man evolution goes the way of the Dodo all on its own. That approach to things is moot. Real scientists will continue to sort out exactly how DNA, mutation, copy-errors and even epigenetics work to change lifeforms from generation to generation, and exactly how far they have been changed or can be changed via these routes. This, while the hardcore, old-school, Darwinian ideologues fade into obscurity, relics of a simpler time. Creationists of various sorts and ID proponents will gain ground, probably even mysticism of various other types will, as well. There is nothing the man-to-minerals evolutionist can do. He is irrelevant, and only held on to the science so hard because it fed his atheism anyway. The question is what brand of Creationist will he become when his intellectual barriers to it crumble beneath actual scientific thought . . . or will his pride cause him to fail to make the leap at all.

In and around the hedge, nomatter what they try and sell you, it's always Groundhog Day. Always. Only the groundhogs have now completely morphed into lemmings, vaunting rancid vaporware as though it were The New Commodity. Even so, not all of them jump at once. Why, you ask? Here's why: because it would be just too fantastic if that entire species were to become suddenly extinct.