From: Michael Aquino Area: Base of Set To: Quintin Phillips 7 May 94 10:21:00 Subject: RE: Re: Group-Hierarchy UpdReq QP> My personal ethic weighs on the side of the Innuit/Aboriginal and QP> away from the "keep them alive at any co$t". Does this mean that QP> I am immoral? No, because the immoral course of action is to evade the decision and endorse everything being gestated and preserved alive. Supposedly that endorses the sanctity of [human] "life" per se and certifies you as a nice person. Morality necessitates making choices - the more difficult and complex the choice, the more the test of morality. Often the test is between morality as an abstract factor and any number of practical or utilitarian considerations. Then the moral person may still make a decision based only, or primarily, on his moral convictions - and stand the consequences of appearing to be socially "inconvenient". As I look back on the 20th century, I think that perhaps its greatest failure has been its inability to come to grips with the management of human population vs. the capacities of the planet. Whatever else one may say about the Nazi episode - by which I mean not just Germany but the very aggressive theme of racism that extended across turn-of-the-century Western culture - its discrediting as a result of World War II has left the world fundamentally unable to confront the problem of population. Every attempt to do so is immediately howled down with shrieks of "genocide", "racism", "Nazism", etc. And so the human race continues to expand, out of control and with no attempt whatever at positive genetic engineering. We can and routinely do create better, stronger, and healthier horses, dogs, etc. - but the notion of applying such science to humanity is this century's strongest taboo. Our future will pay the price for it; indeed the present is already doing so in terms of the vast areas of human misery in the world of 1994. 201434369420143436942014343694201434369420143436942014343694718