Re: virus: RE: virus, Abortion, etc.

Mike Kirby (
Wed, 13 Mar 1996 16:28:20 -0500

John Steele wrote:
> But if you consider a large group of individuals, the two definitions of
> "good" diverge. And this is why I said earlier that foregoing children
> benefitted everyone but yourself. If, by foregoing children, you better
> the chances that people in your group will have children, then there is
> some justification for it. But if you're simply doing it out of some
> notion that it's better "for the planet", then I would posit that it's
> misguided.

Simplifying the meaning of life down to replicating one's species DNA works fairly well on an
animalistic level-- even a human level to some extent. However, our more evolved intelligence
suggests that our survival mechanisms have become more obscure, and at first glance may seem

All other species work in their own self-interest-- deer don't decide not to have children for
the "greater good" of deerdom. If the deer population gets out of hand, deer starve or its
predator population grows as well to keep it in check. Humans, in their quest to replicate their
DNA as much as possible, have successfully upsurped any such natural checks-- our worlds'
population has outgrown what the planet can sustain without artificial means. We have developed
these artificial means to feed our population thusfar-- but at what cost?

The same intelligence that has allowed us to alter the food chain (food web?) so drastically has
also given us the ability to see further down the paths we choose-- we can see that the Earth's
population needs to decrease if we are to start a symbiotic relationship and not perpetuate the
current, parasitic one. Because of this foresight, it could be argued that not having children
for the good of the planet _is_ in fact working toward the best interests' of the human DNA. If
we breed ourselves into extinction, how does that benefit anyone?

Executive summary: Save the planet- kill yourself!

Mike Kirby
Wholesale Slaughter Enterprises