jlg@lanl.ARPA (03/05/85)
> I'm not a [Ll]ibertarian, per se, but I still disagree with the idea > that I have a "*duty*" to care for the next generation. Why is it > my duty to maintain the continuity of the species? > > Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" This is where evolution takes a hand. Those who share the above view are unlikely to have supporters among the next generation. One presumes that Ken Montgomery's parents didn't have this bias either, so Ken must be an unsuccessful mutation in this generation. J. Giles
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/06/85)
Some misunderstanding of evolution to clear up here: [Ken Montgomery] > I'm not a [Ll]ibertarian, per se, but I still disagree with the idea > that I have a "*duty*" to care for the next generation. Why is it > my duty to maintain the continuity of the species? [J. Giles] > This is where evolution takes a hand. Those who share the above view are > unlikely to have supporters among the next generation. One presumes that > Ken Montgomery's parents didn't have this bias either, so Ken must be > an unsuccessful mutation in this generation. Giles' conclusion might be true, except that he overlooks the possibility that Ken is only speaking his CURRENT interests. If Ken develops (:-) children, his ideas of duty might change. Just as people's opinions tend to reflect the econmic interests of their class, and thus change, so Ken's opinions might change as his circumstances change. It's a strongly adaptive strategy, if that sort of hypocrisy or opportunism doesn't earn a maladaptive reaction. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (04/03/85)
[] [me] >> I'm not a [Ll]ibertarian, per se, but I still disagree with the idea >> that I have a "*duty*" to care for the next generation. Why is it >> my duty to maintain the continuity of the species? [J. Giles] >> This is where evolution takes a hand. Those who share the above view are >> unlikely to have supporters among the next generation. One presumes that >> Ken Montgomery's parents didn't have this bias either, so Ken must be >> an unsuccessful mutation in this generation. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Interesting. Mr. Giles appears to subscribe to the notion that peoples' actions are determined by their genes. But why does he bother posting articles? Does he think to alter the actions of someone whose behavior is already fixed? BTW, why should I care whether I have "supporters among the next generation"? [Mike Huybensz] >Giles' conclusion might be true, except that he overlooks the possibility >that Ken is only speaking his CURRENT interests. If Ken develops (:-) >children, his ideas of duty might change. Sure, for *my* children. Why would I gain a sense of duty towards the children of other people? > Just as people's opinions tend >to reflect the econmic interests of their class, and thus change, so Ken's >opinions might change as his circumstances change. It's a strongly >adaptive strategy, if that sort of hypocrisy or opportunism doesn't earn >a maladaptive reaction. Well, it seems that Mr. Huybensz couldn't resist a little ad hominem attack to finish up his posting. Why is changing one's opinions in response to changes in evidence/world-view "hypocisy"? Are scientists hypocrits? BTW, what's inherently wrong with opportunism? -- The above viewpoints are mine. They are unrelated to those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer. Ken Montgomery "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" ...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]