I meant the temporary pinnacle. If you still disagree, please enlighten me as to how humans aren't the highest form of evolution temporarily on the planet.

I don't know if you were replying in response to me or not, and due to my fatigue at le moment, because i don't know, i can't be bothered to respond.

We are the most intelligent (by our own standards) and can do many acedemic tasks that other species cannot, but we are not the most successful organisms. The arthropods are way better at surviving, and lead the way for multicellular life, various parasites knock us off the top hands-down, but undoubtably the most successful of all living things are various species of bacteria, some of which have remained unchanged for three billion years.

Also, we cannot be the pinnacle, purly because there is no top to accomodate. Life is not a ladder, with us at the top: we are an insignificant twig on a branch, that will one day thicken and split into many more twigs. Or, most likely, drop off entirely.

Now that that is cleared up, back on topic.

Yeah, but I can squish a little bug.

Humans win! :p

Bacteria, on the other hand, is crazy stuff with its taking on new DNA so quickly to resist things that kill it. Still, the human brain gives us the ability to create and mix the right chemicals to kill it (quite often). I think that sort of brain power puts us above the rest in terms of evolution. Simplistic thinking, of course, but I think it holds truth.

Sorry about being away for so long, I just got AE and spent the last two days playing it...

The tomatoes were an analogy and Andrea Yates was an example. Only that.

I am also humanitarian, but, I suppose, in a more cruel and straightforward way. Why should we bog ourselves down with taking care of the mentally ill, and, above all, risk harm for ourselves, when we can send them to a better place and be left to deal with the more prominent problems which cannot be cleared up so easily? Why burden ourselves if another win-win situation is available?

If we are to advance in society, we have to look on it objectively. There can only be two ways to manage it - one that is good for it and one which is bad. Our race is too populous to take into consideration every single person on this planet. We, as we will always, have to fight for our existence, and those who cannot fight will ultimately be left behind.

That is a slippery slope. However, I am currently on the receiving end of a slippery slpoe argument, so have no right to employ it at this time.

Just think of what we would become should be start euthanasing people because we don't want them around.

Lastly: what is more important? Money, or a human being's life? That is the question put forward by the finance department of every major coorporation, particuarly airliners and other high-risk endevours. They decide that it is cheaper to let the few die and pay compensation then it is to employ safety measures in all their services. That is the scary truth, echoing the money hungry conglomerates that form the enemy in Oddworld. Surely we are all against that?

"What car company do you work for?"
"A major one."
Andrea Yates is insane but she must pay the price. Put this murdering bitch in a psych ward until glowing cockroaches rule a bombed out husk of Earth. Its the only way. And charge the retarded husband with negligence, manslaughter and/or wrongful death and put him away for a good long time, too. Thats what I would rule.

Money? Who said anything about money? I must put a similar question forth: What would you sooner do? Put one person to sleep, or endanger the lives of many others?

As for your response, Statikk, what is the difference between locking someone up for life and putting them to sleep?

If killing one person will improve society or keep it save at least, then yea I won't hesitate to do that.

And money is more important then a human life! Mwhaha!

I was refferring to the cost-of-keeping argument put forth earlier.

I thought that was what prison was for.

Killing another for the overall benefit for society may seem like a logical thing to do, but killing, in my mind, is simply getting rid of the problem, not fixing it. The test of society is whether we take the easy way or the hard way. No one deserves to be killed off, no matter how much it will "improve society." Execution is about revenge, not justice.

And on a side note, I'm finding it a bit awkward hearing things from the Christian members encouraging things like killing off the weaker links. Isn't it a commandment that you can't kill another human being?

"The test of society is whether we take the easy way or the hard way"

So you would agree that experimenting on the lesser echelons of society would be beneficial? I mean, if we're going to waste money on them (money that could be spent on improving education, health services yadda-yadda-yadda) we may as well try and figure out what the problem is with them, yes?

Now, we could either do this with psychological experimentation or invasive experimentation...but i'm sure the sooperest way would be to do both.

Savvy?