Subject:
|
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2001 01:21:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
374 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > Which do you think provides objectively a greater chance that your genetics
> > will live on--your ability to see, or your ability to reproduce?
>
> 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 EXTREMELY near past (in terms of the planet's lifetime) did
> blindness (at least, blindness NOT a part of the creature's design) no longer
> doom you to death.
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: reproduction despite blindness) ever since the EXTREMELY near
past. Further, the statistical chance of a blind creature passing on its genes
is infinitely greater than a sterile creature passing on its genes (barring
artificial reproduction methods like cloning et al), so the point remains that
the greater crime to the individual, in terms of longitudinal effect on the
propogation of genes, is sterilization.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
