Subject:
|
Re: what do you think of editorals regarding the environment?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2001 15:25:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
437 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > Well, in terms of this discussion, the individual is irrelevant compared to
> > the larger, longitudinal issue we're addressing.
>
> 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 things only effects the individual, not the genetic lines.
> Only individuals are capable of feeling slighted, and most individuals would
> feel worse about losing their sight than their fertility.
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 exists."
> If the 90% were random, wouldn't that just make it OK? Of course, it
> wouldn't _be_ random, but what can you do?
If the 90% were random by chance, such as--I don't know--cosmic rays or
whatnot, rather than by saying "we're all going to pick numbers and some of you
will lose," then I'd agree that the randomness, while not "OK," would be
preferable. That is, if we're mandating a system of sterilization that
contains randomness, that's fundamentally different from a purely random
occurrence of sterility.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
29 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
