| | Deanna wrote, This reminds me of a short story by Isaac Asimov, but I don't remember the name of it. Due to a huge increase in life expectancy, the world was ridiculously overpopulated. When a family increased their size through childbirth they were forced to reduce their size through death. They had to pick a member of the family to murder, basically, for every child that was born. In this story, the main character was an expectant father whose wife was in the delivery room giving birth to triplets and he still didn't know who he was going to kill so that his children could be born. He ended up going crazy and killing 3 hospital employees.
Did I have a point? Oh yeah, I don't think life extension is a very good idea. See above. I replied, "Based on a science fiction novel in which people are required to kill a family member in order to have another child? Do you think that this is a realistic basis on which to argue that people shouldn't improve the length and quality of their lives?"
Deanna replied, Bill,
Again, I wasn't being serious. I shoulda included a smilie or something in that post. I don't know if Asimov was making some kind of political statement himself when he wrote that story. I found it quite comical myself and preposterous. My mistake for thinking that everyone would understand what I meant. Okay, thanks for the clarification. But can you blame me for drawing the interpretation I did, when you wrote, "Did I have a point? Oh yeah, I don't think life extension is a very good idea. See above."? What does "See above" mean in this context, if not that you were somehow connecting Azimov's story to your rationale for opposing life extension? Then Ted weighed in Deanna,
Please stop apologizing. There is such a thing as rhetorical generosity. One should always attempt to take a person's remarks in the best possible way - give them the benefit of the doubt. The ease of misunderstanding a person's on-line statements, given the impossibility of the immediate feedback of body language and vocal tone is something anyone who has been on-line for more than a few months should understand. I laughed when I read your post, and saw the obvious satire implied. One would have to assume that you were a psychopath to advocate population control by that method, or at least a Red Chinese apparatchik, and puppy-killer to boot. I can't see anything you've ever posted that would justify such a miserly interpretation of your post. And I am also surprised that posters here would not have seen Asimov's satirical style in it as well. Give me a break here! I certainly wasn't assuming that Deanna advocated population control by that method, nor that Azimov did (now who's misreading whom?), but I did think that she was opposed to life extension on the grounds that it could result in the kind of overpopulation that could lead to these kinds of difficult choices.
So Deanna, were you also joking when you said that "I don't think life extension is a very good idea"? Just for purposes of clarification, where exactly do you stand on the issue? Thanks.
- Bill
|
|
