Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (229862)	5/5/2007 7:19:52 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Since I see our interests as pretty much the same, I don't think there is a problem. So when we work for all the species, and for the habitability of the planet, we work for ourselves I'd agree with the 2'nd statement but not the first. The majority of humans on this planet think otherwise. To the degree that humanism is about the 2'nd I'd say it is good. But the stated premise from the article you linked says nothing about 2. I wouldn't mind defining it to explicitly include animals, though. I just don't see the problem. Philosophical meanders like to think they are logical & rational. If so, they need to be careful about the starting axioms. The starting axioms in this case are not sufficiently compatible with science. Hence my examples showing the problems. The folks who seek dominion over the Earth, and who don't seem to give a crap about other species tend to be (from my observation) the biblically bound- not the humanists. I agree.