"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...


OK, let's take one simple example. When wars were fought with clubs or
swords, the strong and/or smart survived better than the weak and/or
stupid. Thus warfare was, in at least one sense, good for the species.

Unless you were one of the weak and smart ones who would have discovered a
cure for the current killer disease. Just who decides which is better -
strong or weak? How many truly smart people are equally strong combatants?
At what loss to society for them to be killed by the strong simply because
they are weak? You are really setting yourself up to be god in your
scenario Larry in that you're taking it upon yourself - or perhaps a group,
to determine which traits are valuable. In what way is that different from
the current moral system?


Once we learned to kill at a distance, with nuclear weapons being at the
current end of that chain, who died became much more random (and
included a lot of non-combatants). So warfare is now, in all senses,
bad for the species.

That does not make sense Larry. If killing the weak and stupid was good
before, then it still has to be good now. Sure, you're also killing some
strong and smart, but at least you're getting rid of the weak and stupid, so
that must remain good, right?


And what happens to the poorest members of our society if vaccines are
made profitable by raising prices? Surely your beliefs must include
answering the "Am I my brother's keeper" question in the affirmative.


Hey - I thought we just got done killing off all of the poor members of our
society...

--

-Mike-