 | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Like I said, it was knee-jerk, rather than rationally considered, and stemmed most likely from the usual perception of the male deciding what's best by seizing control of the female's reproductive process. Upon reflection I realized what you (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) In your mind maybe. To me and my wife, we'd MUCH rather have our sight than kids ;-) I spent $4K for laser surgery just to correct my badly nearsight vision, and I haven't regretted it for a second. -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web Server (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) not (...) I suppose. But so what? The individuals are the ones who'll feel the pain in either case, and I think most people would rather have their eyes than their eggs. (...) kids (...) and I (...) So far, I think I'm winning. I've spent more (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) In my mind, and in the "mind" of 3.5+ billion years of evolution so far. Which do you think provides objectively a greater chance that your genetics will live on--your ability to see, or your ability to reproduce? Dave! (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Well, in terms of this discussion, the individual is irrelevant compared to the larger, longitudinal issue we're addressing. Dave! (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Ah, but if you're going to take the tack of genetics alone, losing your site virtually guarantees that you die quickly and don't pass your genetics on anyways. If you lose repro capability, at least you can help OTHERS survive. Only in the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Once again, though--since we're speaking of how we might address the population/resource crisis of the present and near future world, I don't think it's inappropriate refer to something that's been within the realm of possibility (ie: (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) I certainly agree with your larger point -- that your ability to reproduce is is more important than your sight to your ability to propogate your genetic line. However, I disagree with your "infinitely greater" comment. When you reproduce, (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) Well...I'm not sure I'd say it that way. Certainly the picture over time is more relevant to the issue of population control, but you originally stated something like "it's more of a crime if you look at it genetically." The criminality of (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) We're differing on a definition (as always seems to be the case between us!) If a creature passes down its own genes directly to its offspring, I see that as fundamentally different from allowing the passage of genes in which that creature (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
|
(...) And the lifespan of the individual is fleeting in comparison to the lifespan of the genes. I was imprecise in saying "crime," but I was being more metaphorical than litigious. Replace "it's more of a crime" with "the longer-lasting wrong (...) (23 years ago, 3-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
