psuvm%cjc@psuvax.UUCP (04/22/84)
G. Owens, I think that a basic but unspoken difference between your position and mine is that you are an optimist who thinks any problem can be solved if we try hard enough, and I am a pessimist who thinks that all solutions have side effects, frequently producing bigger problems than the ones they solved, and that some problems have no solution. You would like every human life conceived to be prolonged to an average human lifespan; I know of no form of life in which that goal is even approached, not even in experimental situations where all necessities are provided. I think that if your goal could be realized the eventual result would be something like 1845-1850 in Ireland, and that was suffering I don't like to think about (OR like the famous experiment with rats - see your psychology textbook) During the last century or so, the human population has increased tremendously - at the expense of nearly every other form of life on Earth. I don't think that the preservation of every human life is the basis for ethics (as someone on this net said), I think it is partly blind instinct and partly greed. The only support I can see for it is power, ie., we humans have the power to ensure that most or all of us live, therefore we should do it. That's not 'ethical' behavior for any single group of humans, how can it be ethical behavior for humanity as a whole? The feature which distinguishes humans from animals is intelligence; that is also the source of our power to take all the resources of the earth away from other living beings. On the grounds that greater power requires greater responsibility, I would like us to intelligently limit our reproduction so that only those persons who can provide at least average environment and heredity for their children would have children, but I cannot imagine that this will ever be done. If we can't limit intelligently, then we should accept some of the natural controls that limit other life forms, one of which is that infants not wanted (& therefore cared for) by their parents usually die. We might also try to reduce the unnatural terror of death which so many people have now; "life is very dangerous - it always ends fatally". To address a few stray ends: If we've ever been of the bandwagon, its been a rare period of luxury, we're certainly not off it now. We have a considerable number of abortions, a million cases of child abuse *reported* yearly (tip of iceberg), a large & growing number of divorced parents who refuse to contribute to support their children, leading to a large & growing proportion of children in poverty (limited abandonment) a large number of 'runaways' who are really 'pushouts'. Your idea that we should love all our children is indisputable, unfortunately it isn't done. A living child is capable of far more suffering than a fetus is; it is both more aware and stronger. As long as we can't prevent or stop the suffering of so many living children, why be so determined to add more to them? As for the "40 million", I suspect that a large proportion of them WILL die, not from anyones' decision, but from combination of disease, malnutrition, abuse, etc., as uncaredfor children always have. Of the survivors, a great number will add very little to their culture but more abandoned children. I think abortion/infanticide is not crueler. > One has opened a veritable can of worms when one says that "it is > expedient that one man (or group or class) should die that the > nation not perish." Survival on those terms may not be worth living. Life IS a can of worms and great portions of the human race survive under conditions I don't consider worth living. Read about the lifestyle of the Irish peasants just before the famine. C. Clark cjc@psuvm (BITNET)
owens@gatech.UUCP (Gerald R. Owens) (04/23/84)
Since this was posted publicly, I shall reply publicly also. *********Start of quote************* G. Owens, I think that a basic but unspoken difference between your position and mine is that you are an optimist who thinks any problem can be solved if we try hard enough, and I am a pessimist who thinks that all solutions have side effects, frequently producing bigger problems than the ones they solved, and that some problems have no solution. You would like every human life conceived to be prolonged to an average human lifespan; I know of no form of life in which that goal is even approached, not even in experimental situations where all necessities are provided. I think that if your goal could be realized the eventual result would be something like 1845-1850 in Ireland, and that was suffering I don't like to think about (OR like the famous experiment with rats - see your psychology textbook) ********End of quote***************** Yes, I remember the famous famine in Ireland. If I am not mistaken, it was caused by some sort of potato blight. No efforts were made, by the British government, to relieve the suffering. A natural result of a callous view toward human life. Indeed, I am an optimist, and proud of it. There ARE solutions, there IS no need for overcrowding (men are not rats, unless they abandon reason and a postive approach to existence. Then why shouldn't they?? ********Start of quote********** During the last century or so, the human population has increased tremendously - at the expense of nearly every other form of life on Earth. I don't think that the preservation of every human life is the basis for ethics (as someone on this net said), I think it is partly blind instinct and partly greed. The only support I can see for it is power, ie., we humans have the power to ensure that most or all of us live, therefore we should do it. That's not 'ethical' behavior for any single group of humans, how can it be ethical behavior for humanity as a whole? *********end of quote*********** Agreed, although I would find it hard to justify denying that human life is of value, otherwise I'd be declaring that I was of little value, and my argument could be cut short by you cutting my throat. In the meantime, who's willing to give up the benefits of modern health science? You go first, be my guest. *********Start of quote********* The feature which distinguishes humans from animals is intelligence; that is also the source of our power to take all the resources of the earth away from other living beings. On the grounds that greater power requires greater responsibility, I would like us to intelligently limit our reproduction so that only those persons who can provide at least average environment and heredity for their children would have children, but I cannot imagine that this will ever be done. If we can't limit intelligently, then we should accept some of the natural controls that limit other life forms, one of which is that infants not wanted (& therefore cared for) by their parents usually die. We might also try to reduce the unnatural terror of death which so many people have now; "life is very dangerous - it always ends fatally". **********End of Quote*********** I agree with the intelligent self control of the population. History seems to show that it comes naturally as a result of an increased and improved life-style. But legalizing infanticide? I'll ask the tired old question: where and when will it stop? Reducing the "unnatural" terror of death?? Goodness, have you SEEN how a cornered animal fights for it's life? If we're animals, why should we change?? The only methods found to reduce the terror of death that I know are effective are either : 1) be in a fighting frenzy intent on slaughering as many as you can: 2) utter depression and despondency about life, leading to suicide, or 3) an incredible belief in an afterlife. I have no fear of death due to #3, but I'm not in a hurry to leave: there is still too much to be done. ***********Start of quote*********** To address a few stray ends: If we've ever been of the bandwagon, its been a rare period of luxury, we're certainly not off it now. We have a considerable number of abortions, a million cases of child abuse *reported* yearly (tip of iceberg), a large & growing number of divorced parents who refuse to contribute to support their children, leading to a large & growing proportion of children in poverty (limited abandonment) a large number of 'runaways' who are really 'pushouts'. Your idea that we should love all our children is indisputable, unfortunately it isn't done. A living child is capable of far more suffering than a fetus is; it is both more aware and stronger. As long as we can't prevent or stop the suffering of so many living children, why be so determined to add more to them? As for the "40 million", I suspect that a large proportion of them WILL die, not from anyones' decision, but from combination of disease, malnutrition, abuse, etc., as uncaredfor children always have. Of the survivors, a great number will add very little to their culture but more abandoned children. I think abortion/infanticide is not crueler. ***********End of Quote************** If I remember, the question was whether abortion should remain legal, since it's a "nicer" form of killing, and it was argued that since other cultures have practiced infanticide, then it's ok for us to do so also by legalizing it. Go ahead, send forth the word to slay and slaughter the little children. I dread to think what we will turn into, and wonder what we would have become if by education and hard work we learned to love these unfortunates, rather than treated them like garbage. Gerald Owens Owens@Gatech The party of compassion?? THIS is compassion?? THIS is HUMANism??