> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Gordon Fitch
> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 9:03 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Cybersilliness
>
>
> Christopher Susi:
> > ...
> > Why is it wrong? In many areas they are going through a
> drought which has
> > caused their agricultural capabilities to be diminished. I'm
> not hoarding,
> > I just happened to be living in a country of more resources.
> Because we as
> > a species are able to comprehend this makes it "wrong"? For
> millions are
> > years civilizations and groups of animals have come together,
> populated an
> > area or migrated looking for plentifull resources. Some live,
> some die. We
> > are now somehow obligated to ensure all humans are well fed and
> clothed and
> > have water and shelter? Again, why is it only humans that deserve this
> > special treatment?
> > ...
>
> Because they can think about it and do it, or not do it.
> This places them on the razor's edge: they must choose to
> keep alive or let die. That's why
>
> Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive
> Officiously to keep alive
>
> is a joke -- for most people.
The question was, why do only humans deserve this special treatment. Should we strive to keep alive other animals when their necessary resources become depleted (for sake of argument, lets say it's not a man-made depletion).
Suppose a disease ravages a population of mammals that is the primary food source of a higher order of mammals. A significant portion of those higher-order mammals will also die. Now, if it were cows that became endagered, and therefore endangering us - yes. We should step in because it's in our best interest. However what if it's the west-indian three-legged jack-rabbit? Are we obligated to somehow save them because we may have the ability? If not, wouldn't it be just as wrong as letting a significant portion of humans die? At what order of animal do we draw the line? Chimps?
Anyhow, I think you'll find that in the history of life, the basis to justify saving or helping something is when it stood in the best interest of the savior (e.g. building symbiotic relationships). Of course there are the parastic relationships, but those the host will either try to destroy if possible or they may not be able to, but I doubt they go out of their way to ensure the parasite is well taken care of. Call me a cold-hearted fuck, but unless I find benefit (other than quelling a guilty soul) I see no reason to sacrifice for the benefit of others.