Aardvark

I agree that it does result in treating others badly. I'm not arguing that human nature is a nice thing. I'm arguing that it is inescapable and we have to accept the role it plays in our behaviour. Once we accept it as a fact then we can move on to finding ways of behaving decently. Some aspects of human nature are a problem. We have to recognise the problem first in order to deal with it. It can't be wished away. Yet another point we can agree upon ... how freakish.

Yes, it is relevant. Measuring the value of a mans life is central to the discussion of how a captured terrorist should be treated. Perhaps you would like to contribute some ideas or thoughts to the discussion. Or are you only capable of sneering?

The point i was trying to make is that is is impossible to be perfectly objective in valuing lives. To do so would run against such fundamental tenets of human nature as to be completely unworkable. We have to accept that people will assign higher values on some lives than others. For instance people will value the lives of family memebers more than that of strangers. People will also value the lives of members of their tribe (country) more than the lives of members of another tribe. You are right, it is a problem. But arguing that human nature is ultimately unjust doesn't change the fact of that nature. I think we should accept the reality and work from that starting point. Sometimes you can reach the same destination by different routes. Or maybe i'm just a freak

It could be used as a way to enhance the breeding stock. Superior specimens could be cloned and sent to farms. This would be faster than traditional methods of breeding to pass on the desired bloodlines.

I would make an extra effort to help my shy child, i wouldn't expect an company to be forced to employ him or her to meet a quota. I don't agree with the analogy that society is a family writ large. It's a nice idea but not realistic. I have natural loyalities which are not shared by others. To expect strangers to show the same concern for my children as i do and visa versa is to expect unnatural behaviour. Certainly, extra help should be given to the disadvantaged, education to help the dyslexic for instance. But not affirmitive action programmes. Apart from the practical point that they don't work they seem wrong to me on ethical grounds.

In theory that may be true, in practice it's not so simple. If a nurse (or doctor) removes a piece of equipment they believe to be faulty without management authority then they are potentially liable for serious charges relating to patient endangerment. If they don't remove the equipment then they are potentially liable for serious charges relating to patient endangerment. And in the management is always immune from any consequences as long as no official decision is made, resulting in no useful action ever coming from management. I speak from experience.

I bet the squishy noise they'd make when you tread on them would be most satisfying.

As far as i can see the only fair way to deal with people is on the basis of ability. If you start looking at other factors you are automatically being unfair and unjust. I don't understand how that can be ethically defended.

I'm curious, do you believe that business's should hire people according to percentages of social make up rather than according to ability?

More like silliness, i just can't help myself sometimes As for your point about grasping the concept of warfare. I agree that homo sapiens probably had greater capacity for abstract reasoning and communication enabling them to work in a more co ordinated manner in larger groups and between groups. This does strike me as the defining difference between the two population groups. I don't actually think the homo sapiens did engage in warfare against the Neanderthals on a direct basis, but rather those superior intellectual attributes enabled them to gradually marginalise and usurp the Neaderthals, pushing their populations into more and more marginal areas. The superior grasp of abtracts would have been of benefit in organised hunting and in the passing on of new ideas and innovations as well as promoting greater cohension in larger groups, strength in numbers. All this supposes that homo sapiens were responsible for the extinction of Neanderthals. Personally, that is the view i take.

Hooray for hitting people with big sticks! Neanderthals may have been big and strong, but we had sticks. Suddenly it all makes sense.

I'm a bit nervous about a slippery slope here. Who decides that someones life is intolerable? How is the decision reached? Putting that kind of decision in the hands of a government bueacracy does not fill me with confidence. At the very least the burden of evidence should be totally overwhelming that the life is completely and absolutely intolerable before i could countance a mercy killing. And on this matter i think we should avoid euphermisms. They are words intended to allow us to avoid the reality of our actions. To keep us honest we should us the direct words. For instance state out openly that it is necessary 'to kill the baby', rather than 'euthanise the subject'.

The main moral distinction as far as i see it is the difference between killing and alowing to die. I'm not certain from this link where the Dutch stand on that distinction. Allowing a seriously ill, incurable baby to die is ,in my opinion, acceptable, but to actively kill it is a different matter.

'Nobody wants war' You invited me to come to China and fight a war against you. You have argued that countries are like animals which must fight and kill each other. Or were these simply comments made in anger at the mistaken idea that i hate China and the Chinese? I agree that sometimes war is the only war to defend yourself, my qualms are with the aggressive and unnecessary wars the current Chinese regime has indulged in. The invasion and occupation of Tibet and the invasion of Vietnam were not required for defence, they were acts of aggression. My arguments are with the current regime in China which acts in a barbarous, aggressive fashion. Wanting China to be strong is good, but using that as an excuse for the regimes brutality and needless aggression is mistaken.

You are right, i can not read Chinese, but if you think that the true ideas behind Chinese history are nations behaving like animals with the stronger devouring the weaker then i don't think you learned very much from your reading. That is not civilisation, that is barbarism.

What a delightful invitation, thank you so much. However i am afraid i must decline. You see i have a great love of Chinese culture and history. It is the current Chinese regime which i despise as a brutal aggressive bullying regime. Your attitude personifies that crass stupid arrogant aggression. China is an ancient civilisation, but its present regime, and you if judged by your last post, are acting like barbarians, not civilised people. I have read lots of history, thank you for the suggestion anyway. My reading of history shows me that people and nations of your opinions suffer. The view that we must live in accordance to the law of the jungle and crush anyone weaker than ourselves was exemplefied by the Nazis. If you have read any history you will know what happened to them. Personally i like to believe that we have risen above the law of the jungle, that is after all what being civilised means. I am feel sorry that i need to give lessons on the meaning of civilisation to someone from China. You should feel shame to hold such crass barbarous opinions. Read your own history, China has been great when China has achieved its aims through the means of peace, not war. You have allowed yourself to be corrupted by hate filled propoganda.

The main factor was lack of humans.

It's a curious coincidence that the mega fauna die off always happened at the same time humans turned up on the scene. I think its pretty obvious what happened, but for political reasons people are afraid to draw the obvious conclusions.

You haven't pointed out a single mistake in my information. Seems like you're just not prepared be enter a genuine discussion. Pathetic really.