From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 22:26:53 MST
spike66 wrote:
> Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>> In retrospect, it seems incredible that we could not
>> see that this was very likely going to be the result.
>
>
> Lee, the result was foreseen, the action was
> intentional. Those who minister to those in need
> perpetuate their existence by keeping people in need.
No. Many of those who minister to those in need as well as many
who have very different task in the world such as medicine would
sell their souls to end the need for their services. Such
cynicism as the above is not very becoming.
>
>> But the pressing question is still, what *can* be
>> done in cases of famine? Are we to just turn our
>> backs? (Unless you invade, what other option is there?)
>
>
> The answer is harsh, but no more so than the actions
> that have already been taken in the name of charity.
> The technically advanced must have the courage to
> declare that all cultures are not truly equal, that
> some cultures really are better than others, and that
> technology really does make for longer, healthier,
> happier, better lives.
>
Well, does that mean we just let them starve or not?
> Nonviolent memetic warfare is called for. Are we
> morally obligated to respect other's lives and safety?
> Of course. Are we morally obligated to respect other's
> cultures, religions and customs?
The question was whether we feed them or not. These other
questions were not what was asked.
> I argue that we are
> not, that ideas want to be free. Ideas will make their
> way into closed cultures, and those cultures will
> be turned upside down. We cannot stop that, we do not
> want to stop that. The old ways will be overturned.
> No one can lock up any sizable piece of real estate
> on this planet for any one religion or custom. No
> one can stop a radio wave. No one can stop capitalism.
>
What the hell does this have to do with the question?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 22:26:04 MST