From: mark@unicorn.com
Date: Thu Jul 02 1998 - 04:11:22 MDT
VirgilT7@aol.com wrote:
>A rather interesting argument Mark. First of all, I think that we all have a
>vested interest in keeping public officials alive while they're in office, or
>at least safe from terrorist attack.
You may think that, but it's not true. Again, any immortalist who trusts
governments to look after them is deluded.
>Second, what makes you think that
>everyone, or even most, will be able to move away from those who will likely
>be targeted?
What, you mean people will cut their legs off? Tie them to the ground
and refuse to let them go? Nonsense. Most people won't move away, because
they don't think more than five seconds ahead. But there's no reason
why they're unable to do so; they merely choose not to.
And many of them will die as a result.
The lesson, of course, is that if you want to live a long time you have
to think ahead and take action to reduce avoidable risks, not claim you
"can't" do something when you mean "won't".
> Third, I'm afraid I don't understand how your response to the
>idea of weapons of mass destruction proliferating amongst irrational
>psychotics can be "so what?". Surely the possibility of so much death and
>suffering that could be caused requires more than a "so what?" response.
Sure, it's bad, but so what? Crazies will use mass destruction weapons
against the unsuspecting here and there, and there's nothing we can
really do but accept the risk and try to reduce the motivation for crazies
to do such things. The problem with all the police state schemes suggested
as a way to prevent it is that they will encourage *more* people to
attack. You don't solve a problem by making it worse.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:16 MST