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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (15434)	1/16/1998 1:38:00 PM
From: Skipper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, Humans are the fittest. That's why we dominate this planet. Those things you mention as illogical, I believe are logical. The reason being, to preserve minds. I just don't believe in a government entity coercing me into those actions; I believe in being able to choose for myself where to apply my resources, and I would grant the same right to everyone else, no matter what they would choose individually. Skipper

To: Grainne who wrote (15434)	1/16/1998 5:19:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>For example, Alex pointed out provocatively a few hundred posts back that if we had not gotten civilized and human life was still governed totally by the rule of survival of the fittest, he wouldn't have certain inherited diseases in his family, as the lions or some other savage beast would have eaten the carriers before they were able to pollute his gene pool. < I'm not gonna leave well enough alone, and I'll provoke some more. >But where would that actually get us, really? We would still be total savages.< I haven't thought this through, so I'm not gonna present this as a Good Idea. Merely something to hand around the table while the waitress keeps bringing pictures. So we're saying that "natural selection" was interrupted by the basic principles which make us civilized: compassion for the weak. Well, let's imagine for a moment that selective forces weren't thrown out of the window, merely changed. Instead of being blessed with natural vigor and an uncanny skill to sidestep leopards, let's say for the sake of argument (and hooo doggies, there will be argument!) that the NEW survival virtue is money. Lots&lots of money. This is more egalitarian than the birthright of good genes. But it still presents a credible selection criterion. If you can pay for life-extending services, you and yours survive. If you cannot, well tough; get a f____g job. Of course, there are holes in the system. Inherited money short-circuits the selection mechanism, and writing rules into the gameboard removing inherited wealth (like maybe harsh estate taxation) devalues money as a survival/success driver. If I understand this right, it's not so far off from the Randian concept. Add value - make money - secure life and comfort for your whole family. Fail to add value - get off my doorstep. Overly paternalistic ("socialist") states tend to fail because there is not enough to go around for everybody. Where does compassion fit into all of this? I don't know. While our societies when faced with hard times have bred shining examples of compassion and charity, I suspect they;ve bred even more often a siege mentality in its citizens. "Look, we're just making it as it is; go away with your begging." In the narrowest sense, compassion is irrelevant. Any system which selects for the fit must perforce suck if you're holding the short end of the stick. Our world is still roamed by leopards and collection agencies (the rearguard of the food chain in a money society). The above isn't even well-represented by the term "opinion". "Opinion" is too strong&definite, it smacks of deliberation; call this "night thoughts". I don't know if they hold water. Let's call it "beer talk". Who needs a refill?

To: Grainne who wrote (15434)	1/16/1998 6:11:00 PM
From: Father Terrence	Respond to of 108807

Father Terrence Responds to the Latest Inanities from "Christine the Libertarian" Christine, to paraphrase Holmes, "You continue to look, my dear, but you do not SEE!" <But where would that actually get us, really? We would still be total savages. The development of science and medicine allow us to live longer.> Not created by governments or laws. <Would you want to just forget all of that? If we then have science and medicine, it seems very cruel to deny medical care to people simply because they come from cultures which are still primitive, or are in the lower classes in more civilized societies.> At WHOSE expense? < However, politics at the end of the twentieth century, for most of us anyway, also includes some sense of compassion. Most people have very little tolerance for all the graphic pictures and films of human suffering. So your consequences of the truth, as you would call it, include absolutely logical but harsh ways of looking at the human condition.> Compassion must always be an individual trait. It cannot be legislated, forced, enforced or coercively applied through legislation or government edict. To do so is immoral. <Do you really believe totally just in logic, in complicated situations like this one? Perhaps I am misunderstanding you!!!> Christine, especially in complicated situation or crises one needs logic to prevail and solve the crisis (or crises) more than ever!! Father Terrence