 | | Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) 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? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) 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? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) 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? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
