Cybersilliness

[Gordon Fitch]

Christopher Susi:
> 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.

I think you're raising two different issues here.  One concerns
our relationship, political or moral, to all other sentient
beings, human or not.  This is an issue of considerable
passionate dispute going back several thousand years, and is
by no means as settled as you seem to believe.  The other
issue is how we should deal with other human beings.  Human
beings are different from other animals in that they have much
more power; they can make war on us and kill us, whereas other
animals are for all practical purposes utterly helpless.  I
am not going to attempt to deal with our relationships with
our little furry brethren here because I don't think, based
on past experience, that it will work out well.

In the case of dealing with other human beings, if one has a
choice between constructing a community in which some must
live and others must suffer and die, and one in which
everyone has some sort of chance to live, and one chooses
the former, one has in effect chosen war, a class system,
and slavery, because this is the only way such a situation
can persist.  I would think this would be obvious: human
beings do not voluntarily accept subjugation and death and
have to be continuously trained and disciplined using force,
threats of force and fraud to do so.  We can call this sort
of arrangement "the State".  Those who do the training must
be constantly on their guard lest the system be overturned
and they find themselves on the other side of the gun or lash
or whatever it is they use.  So they are not much freer
than their victims.

There is an additional problem with the State: technological
advances, or "progress".  As more and more power becomes
available to human beings, the methods and devices which they
use in combat with one another will become increasingly
destructive.  It seems inevitable that some configuration of
such methods, devices and events must occur sooner or later 
which will destroy the community physically.

You'll notice that I have rigorously avoided sensitive stuff
like morals and aesthetics here.  There's no idealism, altruism
or communitarianism.  My arguments depend entirely on my
assumption of a preference on your part for personal freedom
and well-being.  Of course you may disdain these things as
well; there are those who do.