|
<<you compare two mutually exclusive things...ie, humans and flowers.>> I disagree, Lorrie. (Others, bear with me, this is not off-topic.) It's true, apples and oranges are hermaphrodites, as are some worms, mollusks, and barnacles. When they self-pollinate the results are similar to those of impregnation of human females by close relatives -- basically undesireable in most cases (on the whole, that's why we have bees: to prevent selfing). Spruces, pines, hemlocks and many trees are monoecious with each individual having both female and male sexual organs on the same plant. They have only the wind to choose for them so they rely on differences in maturation of the pollen and seed cones to reduce selfing. Holly trees, Ginkgo biloba, an ancient species with its own private genus, and humans are dioecious. Not a single one of them, hermaprhodites, monoecious, dioecious alike, can exist without sexual reproduction. Indeed, without sexual reproduction we would all still be lower than the lowest worm. My point: we depend on each other. The human species is the highest pinnacle of sexual reproduction, and unlike many other species, has introduced the element of conscious choice in the matter. Harmony, therefore, is vital to our survival as a species. Thirty years of marriage have taught me that harmony is possible, but by no means inevitable. Competition between individuals is another story. In the millions of acres of forests that I've walked through I've seen spruces, pines, and hemlocks have trying like crazy to outdo their neighbors -- trying, in fact, to drive them into dust, much like the politicians we've been talking about. If you've ever been in the woods as I have, you'd know what I'm talking about. The difference here is that there is no element of conscious choice unless humans intervene. When there is conscious choice the word "no" means NO, and "yes" means YES. On that we agree. In the cases of Clinton and Packwood I think there was probably some of both. Neither has escaped Scot-free. What surprises me is that you think Packwood deserves to be in jail and that Clinton has already been punished more than enough. Don't you think that is a bit illogical? |
