SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Lane3 who wrote (96762)1/25/2005 5:43:35 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) of 793718
 
I want to invalidate it because it is inaccurate and backwards and non-constructive.

Well, we are in complete agreement. Somehow I though you subscribed to that POV. Sorry!

But I'm not buying the second half. At least I don't think I am. Your framing suggests that the shortening of the genetic distance vector is somehow bogus. It's not bogus if the perceived distance is a matter of faulty perception rather than a matter of denial.

Your are correct. Time will tell. However, the problem will always be recast in terms of what is "meaningful". We are 97% (or so) chimp, and so on. In fact, the vast bulk of the really important genes (such a body development) are truly ancient. Perhaps a better way to recast the question is to enumerate precisely the IMPORTANT genes that make us human. At the moment, we don't know, but again, time should fill this in. At that point, people will be confronted with the following sort of issue:

1) If one lacks genes (bla bla bla...) one is close enough to be useful for medical experiments, but far enough away that we will only observe the following ethical treatment (bla bla bla..)

2) If one lacks genes (xyz) one is far enough away to be lunch.

3) If one lacks genes (uvw) one is far enough away to be killed for pleasure.

etc...

That old chestnut? Is that the best you can do?

I generally think that where substantial money is available, good talent rises to the top. Blacks in pro sports came up against great odds and are very well represented. There is a reason, but you may be right its all environment.


I think you would get more traction with this argument if you treated all humans as genetic equals and focused on extending morality to animals.

And what would be the theoretical basis for this? The majority of people use the first part (all humans are identical) to stonewall the second part. I at least have a theoretical basis. I'm willing to extent moral treatment to distant genetic vectors.

You continue to think that my seeing differences in humans is somehow an obstacle. It raises zero obstacles for my treatment of other humans.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News