Re: virus: RE: virus, Abortion, etc.

John Steele (
Wed, 13 Mar 1996 13:38:47 -0600


>Correct me if I misunderstood what you
>wrote, but you seem to imply that (a) we are next to helpless in the face
>of our genetic programming, and (b) whatever is good for the genes, must
>be good for the humans.

I believe that all species are primarily DNA replication systems, and
that the intellect in humans has evolved because, as a strategy, it works
at doing that better than the other strategies "tried out" so far *by the
human system*. So far in human evolution, this means that we have
devloped a moral sense of right and wrong because it helped those
ancestors of ours who were slightly more moral than the rest of the
population get into the next generation.

If this continues to be a successful strategy for humans then we can
expect that, over time, more finely "moral" humans will develop.
(Whatever that means.) If it doesn't, then we can expect that less moral
humans will develop.

This lengthy preamble is simply to get to this point - there are two
definitions of the term "good". There is "good" in the moral sense, and
there is "good" in the sense of what is good for replicating human DNA.

If you consider a small, geographically close group of individuals, I
would say that the two are the same. They are on the same "team" (re my
soccer analogy). Here seemly selfless acts, such as giving your life to
safe a drowning child, can be explained not only as good in a moral
sense, but good for DNA replication.

But if you consider a large group of individuals, the two definitions of
"good" diverge. And this is why I said earlier that foregoing children
benefitted everyone but yourself. If, by foregoing children, you better
the chances that people in your group will have children, then there is
some justification for it. But if you're simply doing it out of some
notion that it's better "for the planet", then I would posit that it's


John Steele Foresight Technology, Inc.
(817) 731-4444 Sales:
Tech Support: