From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Dec 02 2000 - 00:03:47 MST
Randy Smith wrote:
>
> Wow. Tremendous post. What a perfect example of eactly what we are up
> against.
>
> > Though I admire the depth of vision and imaginative genius on display in
> >this work I have many problems with its philosophical underpinnings.
> >Broderick, and the scientists he discusses, seem to have little conception
> >of old age and death as necessary parts of the human life cycle.
>
> I am stunned almost speechless by the depth of the gulf between his thinking
> and ours. When I hear someone who is apparently educated and well-read make
> this statement, and realize that the vast majority of humans share his
> viewpoint, I wonder if we have any real chance to win them over, ever.
>
I do not see why the above invokes this strong or one-sided a response.
Before the current age of science old age and death were very much
necessary parts of human life cycle as they are very much necessary
parts of the life cycle of other species that propagate by sexual
reproduction. It is only by becoming bright enough to go beyond mere
biology and natural selection that this becomes no longer the case.
There is some deep bonding to the birth, life, death cycle in creatures
such as we. It will not be instantaneous that many see it and go beyond
it. Have some compassion for your fellow creature's difficulty with
this. Go writing them off and they will simply write you off, perhaps
in worse ways than simply ignoring you.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:10 MST