You really must learn the difference between slippery slope and Reductio ad adbsurdum.Bke said:[q
This is a slippery slope argument. I really don't want to reply to this run on fallacy, but I shall. There is a difference between hunting something to extinction and systematically destroying it, something we do with bacteria and viri.
I don't see how pharmaceuticals are related to this.
And I would agree that if something is going extinct then we must let it, but I did also say that our compassion does play a role in this process, so it is difficult to say what really constitutes evolution in that regard. However I will say that whatever the outcome, whether our compassion or destruction wins out, we must accept the results.
I'll let you go read it up.
You argued that interfering with evolution = bad. So I bring up an example of interfering with evolution that is widely regarded as good.
pharmaceuticals are relevant because once you eliminate ecological reasons, then human reasons are a good next case.
For example one argument for saving the rainforest is that cures for diseases such as cancer could be found there. I was attempting to preempt an argument... this seems to have been wasted.
Now if you want to argue compassion. What could possibly be more compassionate than raising the dead?
Surely it would be nice if our children could see a mammoth, we could undo a mistake our cavemen ancestors made.