From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Human-centered point of view
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:03:34 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <j77t9fj@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.131510.4824@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <AWERLING.92Apr2112348@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>> In article <1992Apr1.100951.4692@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>awerling:
..

>>In a nutshell, I think society is worth preserving because it is a system 
>>whereby we regulate our behavior not by force (as is the *natural* way) but 
>>by law.  We place reason, not emotion, as being paramount.  I feel this is 
>>worth preserving.
>>
> I've always seen emotion as paramount to most people.  If reason is paramount,
> shouldn't the thrust of our current society be towards the development of
> self-propagating machines that have not emoion, and the destruction of
> human life? 

Huh?  Because reason is supposed to be paramount (it doesn't always work 
out that way, but that is the theory) in no way indicates that emotion 
should be completely eliminated.

> 
>>>>Would *you* like to go live in a cave?  Return to nature?  If so, go right 
>>>>ahead.  Me?  I'll stay right here, thanks all the same.
>>> 
>>> O.K.  I think I understand where you're coming from.  You prefer a
>>> humancentric point of view because you are human and don't want to
>>> live in a cave.  I'm not being fascitious (sp?).
>>
>>On that you are correct, but it goes farther than that.  I look around me 
>>at the world, as it currently exists, and I look back at the world as it 
>>has existed in the past, and I see that human beings have flourished and 
>>prospered to the degree that they have adapted their surroundings to fit 
>>them, rather than adapting to their surroundings.  Being human, I wish to 
>>flourish and prosper.  Therefore, I would like to avail myself of a 
>>dwelling constructed especially for human needs rather than rely on 
>>something that was created without any thought to human comfort.
>>
> Yeah, to fill the human need of architects and contractors to line their
> pockets! :-)  Humans have changed things, but I don't see how they have
> really changed for the better.  Why is our current technology inherently
> better than pristine wilderness with no humans?

Depends on how you define better.  I'd say it is better because we have 
been able to create a society that doesn't require each and every 
individual to be completely self-sufficient.  Rather, our society is 
interdependent, so some people make food while others do research. 

> 
>>>>> Killing a human vs. killing lobster seem to me to have identical
>>>>> cosmic influence.  In either case, a being dies.  
>>> 
>>To equate the death of a lobster with the death of a human being on a 
>>cosmic level is crap.  In all likelyhood the human being will have a far 
>>greater positive or negative impact on the world if it survives than a 
>>lobster will.  To state otherwise seems, to me, to say that you've not 
>>given it much thought.
>>
> Thus the expected outcome of either life is nothing.  The human will
> make a bigger change, in a random direction.  Averaged, that leads
> to no change anywhere.  A lobster makes a small change in a random
> direction.  Averaged, that leads to no change anywhere.

Obviously we disagree quite a bit here.

> 
> E.S.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals