--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: > >But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a > ten % > >drop in the rate would not stop you from being > boiling > >mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but > >philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup > >must go for a whole loaf, never part of one. > >Compromise is for enlightenment humanists. > > So, would you argue that "compromise" is the > appropriate long-term solution > to genocide, fascisim, communism, islamic > fundamentalist jihadism, and > racist segregation? Or should enlightened > humanists always maintain a > long-term goal of complete victory in those cases?
My point was that everybody has some line where they have drawn between the "unpleasant but bearable" and the "intolerable". Your reaction to the former may be pragmatic compromise aimed at reducing the unpleasant without having to get ballistic over what remains. The latter? You must dig in your heels and fight "evil". Problem is that many in our society are unconvinced that God wrote digital laws for a clearly analog world. In biology things are murky with slow and amorhous dividing lines. Those whose PERSONALITIES make them adamant line-drawers had to choose as the moment of life inception the ridiculous moment of sperm/egg joining. A titanic silliness on dozens of levels, proving how absurd such purist/romantic twaddle can get. (God Himself aborts half of such joinings, which are better called "rought drafts of manuscripts for a later human.") It bois down again to personality. Pragmatic enlightenment types what to maximize the overall number of happy children who can compete on a level playing field. Birth control powerfull helps this end. Proved. Aristos dont' want this to happen and have joined forces with fanatics who would impose "human being" on clusters of cells that clearly are nothing of the kind. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
