----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:32 PM Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home...
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 4:07 PM > Subject: Re: Terrorism too close to home... > [Snip everything for the sake of a tangent] The question going through my mind is : Are genetic imperatives rational? I'm going to take it for granted that Erik is arguing from a moral/ethical point of view, and in that he is correct in describing Gary's scenario as irrational. But from a genetic point of view I think the answers are very different. Once you have reproduced, a parents sole (in terms of genetics) purpose in life is to protect ones offspring. (And/or to produce more.) Another idea that comes to mind is that morality and ethics are new things that have only existed for a few thousand years, but genetic imperatives have been around for at least a billion years. I'm wondering if there are not separate rationalities and if there are not more rationalities than these to be considered. xponent The Odd Thought Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
