From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Mar 21 2002 - 17:01:56 MST
James Rogers wrote:
> On 3/20/02 4:12 PM, "Smigrodzki, Rafal" <SmigrodzkiR@msx.upmc.edu> wrote:
>
>>Whenever there is a conflict between the survival of innocent humans, and
>>anything else, even libertarian rules, survival wins hands down with me.
>>
>
>
> Survival is not a binary state. Are you trying to increase the average
> survivability of all humans, or making sure that all humans survive
> minimally? Having everyone "win" could very well mean that no one wins.
>
It *could* but doesn't necessarily. A bit down the road we
might consider the notion that some can win while everyone else
loses to be a sign of our former primitive state.
> And what is an "innocent human" in the context of survival?
>
Perhaps it could be expressed as "Sentients are more important
than things and ideas, including political theories."
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:03 MST