From: smithrs@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (SMITH  RANDALL SCOTT)
Subject: Re: Abbey bashing.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:39:10 GMT

In article <Nov17.213846.66267@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU (wayne trzyna) writes:
>The fact that the snake doesn't "think" implies only that the snake
>isn't guilty of stupidity.
>
>-Wayne Trzyna
> trzyna@CS.ColoState.EDU

It seems to me that only those which _think_ can be guilty of stupidity, and
only those capable of learning can _choose_ ignorance...

Philosophical babblings aside, I've come to the logical conclusion that 
Christians, Catholics in particular, are hell-bent on bringing about the
second coming.  The Lord said, "Go forth an multiply, spread your seed across
the lands!" or some such nonsense.  Well, that was over 2000 years ago (possibly
longer).  IMHO, humans have been pretty successful.  Actually, we've been so
successful in being "fruitful" that we are now threatening our own existence.

Basically, this is what environmentallism is all about:  Saving our own skins.
The biosphere is rapidly reaching saturation in respect to human density.  Do
you remember eighth-grade biology and bacteria colony growth curves.  In this
case one should be easily able to make to microscopic-macroscopic jump of logic.
Bacteria reach a plateau in their growth curve after a vigorous, exponential
expansion.  Then they begin to die off at the same rate as they reproduce.
Eventually, the death rate surpasses the rate of reproduction and the petri
dish will become sterile again, the bacteria unable to live with their own
waste products.

In this sense, I believe that Wayne and Ed are correct.  The life of the snake
(or the spotted owl, or the bald eagle, or the black rhino, or, or, or) is 
more important to the overall health of the biosphere than is one or one 
hundred human lives.  If you don't believe me, check out Somolia, Bosnia, China
or any of these other third-world or former second-world nations.  Human life
is not worth spit in some of these places.

However, back to philosophy.  An individual's life is sacred (assumedly) to that
individual.  By extension, the lives of that individual's immediate community
are sacred to that individual insofar as the community supports the life of
the individual and their progeny.  How far should this sancity of life extend?
Really this is the crux of the question.  Five of the seven major continental
land masses could be cleansed of humanity without threatening the existence of
the human race.  However, each community thus wiped out results in the removal
of individuals whose lives are sacred to themselves and their communities. 
Such a decision lies within no one's rights to make.

The flip side of this argument is that the human race does not have the right
or ability to continue its growth at the expense of all other forms of life.
In fact, any attempt to do so will ultimately result in the extinction of
humanity.  I don't say this out of extremist scare-tactics; in fact I am
not sure that, at this point in time, we can prevent our own extinction or 
that it will be a bad thing.  Shit happens.  What I am saying is that it is
in our own self-interest as a species to limit or even lower our own growth.
The easiest and least morally oppresive way to limit our growth lies in 
limiting our birth rate to at or below the death rate.  Hence my comments
about Catholics, et al.  Religion has its place, illogical though it may be.
However, we cannot let our preconcieved and outdated notions lead us to the
verge of self-destruction.  

Nature allows only those that adapt to continue.


FLAME AWAY!  :-)

Randall Smith
smithrs@ucsu.colorado.edu

My opinions are mine alone, and if you don't agree I'll politely listen to
you before telling you to Fuck off.  After all, I'm not close minded or 
anything....