Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Next generation (two replies)
Message-ID: <1551@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 13:12:11 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.1551
Posted: Wed Apr  3 13:12:11 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:26:38 EST
References: <1407@ut-ngp.UUCP> <22824@lanl.ARPA> <392@cybvax0.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 45

[]

[me]
>> I'm not a [Ll]ibertarian, per se, but I still disagree with the idea
>> that I have a "*duty*" to care for the next generation.  Why is it
>> my duty to maintain the continuity of the species?
[J. Giles]
>> This is where evolution takes a hand.  Those who share the above view are
>> unlikely to have supporters among the next generation.  One presumes that
>> Ken Montgomery's parents didn't have this bias either, so Ken must be
>> an unsuccessful mutation in this generation.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Interesting.  Mr. Giles appears to subscribe to the notion that peoples'
actions are determined by their genes.  But why does he bother posting
articles?  Does he think to alter the actions of someone whose behavior
is already fixed?  BTW, why should I care whether I have "supporters
among the next generation"?

[Mike Huybensz]
>Giles' conclusion might be true, except that he overlooks the possibility
>that Ken is only speaking his CURRENT interests.  If Ken develops (:-)
>children, his ideas of duty might change.

Sure, for *my* children.  Why would I gain a sense of duty towards
the children of other people?

> Just as people's opinions tend
>to reflect the econmic interests of their class, and thus change, so Ken's
>opinions might change as his circumstances change.  It's a strongly
>adaptive strategy, if that sort of hypocrisy or opportunism doesn't earn
>a maladaptive reaction.

Well, it seems that Mr. Huybensz couldn't resist a little ad hominem
attack to finish up his posting.  Why is changing one's opinions in
response to changes in evidence/world-view "hypocisy"?  Are scientists
hypocrits?  BTW, what's inherently wrong with opportunism?

--
The above viewpoints are mine.  They are unrelated to
those of anyone else, including my cats and my employer.

Ken Montgomery  "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
...!{ihnp4,allegra,seismo!ut-sally}!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]