Would you? A theoretical question.
January 3, 2019 at 5:50 pm
(This post was last modified: January 3, 2019 at 5:51 pm by Brian37.)
There are lots of examples of oppression and cruelty in our species history worldwide. Now considering that times change an power shifts over hundreds and thousands of years, would you prefer an enemy defeat you so that our species can survive say 1,000 or 20,000 or a million years from now if that was the only way our species could survive or would you prefer to have a nuclear war just so nobody wins?
I don't like China or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Russia or North Korea. My point is that our conflicts are current and short term. No power lasts forever, and evolution is far older than our human invented excuses which amount to a struggle over controlling resources.
This isn't an argument on my part saying I don't have my own position. It does cut to the core of Sagan's Pale Blue Dot speech, and a recognition That we are one species.
Is it more important to our species to win at all costs, or survive long term?
I don't like China or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Russia or North Korea. My point is that our conflicts are current and short term. No power lasts forever, and evolution is far older than our human invented excuses which amount to a struggle over controlling resources.
This isn't an argument on my part saying I don't have my own position. It does cut to the core of Sagan's Pale Blue Dot speech, and a recognition That we are one species.
Is it more important to our species to win at all costs, or survive long term?
