From: Michelle Anderson (michelle@barrymenasherealtors.com)
Date: Wed Jan 14 2004 - 14:42:11 MST
> [Blunderov]
> Hi Michelle. Happy New year.
>
> If you are right, Bush may have misappraised the ramifications of any
> discovery that life existed on a different planet than ours.
>
> Then again, maybe not - theology has probably survived worse in it's
> time.
>
> With regard to "evidence that we are not disturbing preexisting
> processes of evolution" I have to wonder whether human intervention
> could not itself qualify as a preexisting process of evolution? And
> whether this thought is not an instance of that age old tendency of
> humans to see ourselves as somehow separate from the rest of the
> universe?
>
> As in so much else, it seems to be a bit arbitrary as to quite where
> the line in the sand should be drawn.
>
> Also, it seems to me that your concern with whether "we're not
> destroying a potential intelligence with a right to evolve" is similar
> to the central question of the abortion issue. Possibly you would take
> a similar stance on both these issues?
>
> Best Regards
>
Ooo! Ooo! I LOVE being challenged for consistency. Hello to you,
Blunderov!
I really like your point about our pride of separation. That is quite a
bit of ego, you are right. And we are a force of nature, just witness
what we've done on our own planet. I posted this mainly for exactly
these questions, because I'm not committed either way. I am concerned,
though, that our sphere of influence has outgrown our wisdom, but that's
more of an emotional response than a logical one, and could be used on
arguments like the abortion issue as well. "Meddling in God's affairs"
or some such nonsense.
The question really comes down to a "does might make right?" debate, and
while in nature might really does make right (at least on an
out-competing type evolutionary level), in society (both human and
non-human, like bands of primates or sea-mammal pods) ethical concerns
are given more weight. Violations of the majority's ethics get you in
trouble. In that context, the difference between the abortion question
and the colonization question seems to rely on the choice of the entity
burdened with nurture. In human society there are 2 entities burdened
in the abortion question - the woman whose womb is being used and the
society that must extend the rights, priveleges and responsibilities to
the new being. For the colonization question there may also be
considered 2 burdened parties - the earth societies who send our
planet's resources (humans, raw goods, money) to mars and mars itself,
whose raw goods would be used. In the abortion debate, the raw material
provider has a voice. Since mars has no more say in the matter than the
earth does in what we do here, I guess the ethical question has been
silenced.
But what about the changing morals of society about the use of nature?
We continue to personify the earth in order to give it rights.
Corporations have rights. Does a planet have rights?
Obviously I'm far from decided, personally...
Michelle
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 14 2004 - 14:42:42 MST