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

Tedlick Badkey (
Wed, 13 Mar 1996 23:21:26 -0500

John Steele wrote:
> What's the difference between natural and artifical in this case? They
> both feed us.

Without modern technology food production would not meet the demands-- livestock
is farmed in multi-story warehouses, turkeys are force-fed until they cannot
stand on their own... This coupled with the fact that we could not get produce
and fresh meats to market without our shipping industry-- how would the populus
of New York City get enough food if it weren't for the trucks, planes, and
trains bringing it in? That's a fairly artificial means of feeding people.
Technically speaking, our industrialized culture is a cyborganic entity-- it
could not exist without artificial assistance in life support.

> >we can see that the Earth's
> >population needs to decrease if we are to start a symbiotic relationship
> >and not perpetuate the
> >current, parasitic one.
> What parasitic relationship? We have a symbiotic relationship with wheat,
> for instance. What you're really saying, I think, is that the species
> _you personally value_ are not held in the same esteem by everyone else.
> Just because I like whales doesn't mean that there is universal agreement
> that whaling should be outlawed. I have to pursuade people that they
> should also value whales as highly as I do. That or I can force them to
> stop at the point of a gun.

Yes, we may have a symbiotic relationship with wheat-- I am referring to "the
big picture" in this, though. The very planet is the host I speak of in these
analogies. All systems not necessary for the survival of the host are
expendable. All systems which threaten the survival of said host must be
eliminated if it is within the host's power. All systems whose activities
benefit the host must be encouraged, rewarded, and passed on. With advanced
civilization putting pollutants into the atmosphere and destroying the
rainforests, we are shortsightedly dooming our planet to be unfit for human
life. But we must have these things to feed our ever-growing population. In a
symbiotic relationship, the planet as a whole would benefit from our needs. Our
present means of acheiving the things in this life that our population needs is
destroying the planet. That is a parasitic relationship. I am confident that we
will be able to come up with the technology to sustain life on this rock until
the sun burns out. But what of the condition of our host? Symbiotic? No way in

> >Because of this foresight, it could be argued that not having children
> >for the good of the planet _is_ in fact working toward the best interests'
> >of the human DNA. If we breed ourselves into extinction, how does that
> >benefit anyone?
> >
> You're asking us to start a self-imposed culling program on ourselves. It
> won't happen. You'll always get one group who will hold back out of their
> own self-interest, bemusedly watching the rest of us commit harakiri.
> When they're in a position to take over, they will. There is a built-in
> tension between the various DNA-suppport systems out there, both outside
> _and_ inside the species, and they're all competing for the same finite
> set of resources. Paradoxically, it is this tension which spurs on the
> pace of evolution.

I hold no such optimism in my fellow man. The only solution which would work
would be a wholesale slaughter of the populus-- no one group should be able to
determine who is fit to live or die. This will most likely happen due to a
plague (ebola is a nice candidate, but it kills too fast to destroy much more
than 30% of the world's population). If we are to make a serious change in the
course of human evolution, a good 70% of the current earth's population will
need to expire. This would plunge us into a "technological dark ages" which
would last probably several hundred years before we got back on our feet.
Perhaps by then we can learn a better way to work with our planet on a long term

Don't mistake me for a "save the whales" type buff-- I have absolutely no
interest in saving a species of animal-- any animal. The strongest will inherit
the earth. The weakest shall perish. I hate it that to promote ourselves on this
planet weaker species must suffer, but that's life. I am only truly interested
in one species-- mine, and that questionably. If we keep on our present course,
we could stand to lose more than 70% of our population, which would be
disasterous-- if 80 or 90% drop dead, then the 10-20% left would have a much
greater chance of extinction. Of course, that may not be so bad. Especially if
in the case of our host.

Executive Summary: "70%, I can live with the smell"

Mike Kirby
Wholesale Slaughter Enterprises