Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.7 $; site uiucdcs
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!dahlback
From: dahlback@uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Dylans cause vs "Live Aid" (mil
Message-ID: <36200235@uiucdcs>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 16:51:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.36200235
Posted: Fri Jul 19 16:51:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 04:56:49 EDT
References: <1191@pucc-k>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:pucc-k:-119100:uiucdcs:36200235:000:875
Nf-From: uiucdcs.Uiuc.ARPA!dahlback    Jul 19 15:51:00 1985



Every so often I still read some "we gotta be hard nosed 'cause
that's evolution" arguments about, for instance, African famine relief.
This is similar, I guess, to some remarks I was reading shortly after
the Bhopal disaster ("There have to be sacrifices for advances in
pesticide control"). Funny thing, though--it's always poor people
from undeveloped countries that are selected by the writers of these
arguments as the targets of evolutionary processes. Always somebody
else that's appointed to be the sacrifice. 

Let's suppose such a person contributed germ plasm to a child that
proved to have a genetic disease carried in that person's plasm.
Would such a person consent to be sterilized and to have his or her child
killed to eliminate the genes for that genetic disease? Naturally not. 
So let's not talk about other human beings as animals to be bred, shall we?