Additionally, the average person would never believe it, as they believe such grand ambitions to be impossible, that no one would actually try it, let alone pass them from generation to generation until actual completion.

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.

---

Quote: from Ancient Rights at 2:23 pm on June 6, 2009

---

It was obvious that it was just to get me to imagine the numbers of people that would need to be "shot" in order for this to be accomplished. And I would shoot a friend, a sibling, a parent to save the species, or at least I would like to think I would have the resolve to do so.

---

Why do you offer such absolute allegiance to a taxonomic grouping of apes?

---

I stated I would do so to save the species. But I would give my allegiance to the men behind the scenes, but to the ideas of it all. A government effectively unifying man, a world court to replace war. This is just my interjection, but a universal language. If you could unite man instead of having him owe his allegiance to his country, to his family, or a religion, but to the species itself. To preserve the world so that it will always be around. It is buying the future with calculated movements instead of letting events pass as they please.

-------
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384,
32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576, 2097152, 4194304, 8388608,
16777216, 33554432, 67108864, 134217728, 268435456, 536870912, 1073741824,
2147483648, 4294967296

---

I stated I would do so to save the species. But I would give my allegiance to the men behind the scenes, but to the ideas of it all. A government effectively unifying man, a world court to replace war. This is just my interjection, but a universal language. If you could unite man instead of having him owe his allegiance to his country, to his family, or a religion, but to the species itself. To preserve the world so that it will always be around. It is buying the future with calculated movements instead of letting events pass as they please.

---

Why do you care about the species as a whole?

---

Quote: from Ancient Rights at 2:44 pm on June 6, 2009

---

I stated I would do so to save the species. But I would give my allegiance to the men behind the scenes, but to the ideas of it all. A government effectively unifying man, a world court to replace war. This is just my interjection, but a universal language. If you could unite man instead of having him owe his allegiance to his country, to his family, or a religion, but to the species itself. To preserve the world so that it will always be around. It is buying the future with calculated movements instead of letting events pass as they please.

---

You are very difficult to talk to. If you must insist upon avoiding all direct questions via semantic quibbling, let me rephrase:

Why do you care about the species as a whole?

---

I suppose the simplest answer would be sentient thought. I believe the human race is capable of amazing things, if we don't destroy ourselves before reaching the pinnacle of what we could be.

-------
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384,
32768, 65536, 131072, 262144, 524288, 1048576, 2097152, 4194304, 8388608,
16777216, 33554432, 67108864, 134217728, 268435456, 536870912, 1073741824,
2147483648, 4294967296

---

I suppose the simplest answer would be sentient thought. I believe the human race is capable of amazing things, if we don't destroy ourselves before reaching the pinnacle of what we could be.

---

And yet you would wipe out 5 billion humans with their remarkable minds all in the name of an invented ideal. You would destroy 5 billion sources of value in order to achieve a state of affairs that is only valuable because you say it is. Whether we exist for another 1,000 years or another 1,000,000, we are an ephemeral blink in the grand scheme of things. There is no one in the sky tallying up our knowledge of the world and waiting to pat us on the back if we come to a certain apex. There is no high score to be reached and there is no collective consciousness striving for it. We are conscious as individuals and we are significant as individuals. Every member of your 5 billion can validly claim himself or herself to be the most important being in the universe, and you think the "future of the species" justifies extinguishing them.

Collectivism denies the real experience of consciousness. Once you or I are dead nothing matters. Once any individual dies nothing matters. Striving for the continuation of existing consciousness is striving for the continuation of meaning. Destroying existing consciousness in the name of meaning is absurd.

Red county = Elbert. Black dot = DeKalb(Me)

---

It's really lame that only two people felt confident enough to respond to this, or among the people that were, only two people thought it was interesting.

---

I was too entertained by watching SpM and you argue with this guy.  

-------
Do not abandon yourselves to despair.
We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.

Pope John Paul II

---

I'm pretty sure I've heard of that. But Elbert County isn't too far from me.

Red county = Elbert. Black dot = DeKalb(Me)

---

You should drive down and take a picture. It's worth seeing, it's like the American Stonehenge (but not as cool as the real thing).

-------
O` tru apothecary!
Thy drugs are quick.
Thus with a kiss I die.

"We must not argue that a certain social situation  is a mere means to an end on the grounds that it is merely a transient historical situation. For all situations are transient. Similarly we must not argue that the misery of one generation may be considered as a mere means to the end of securing the lasting happiness of some later generation or generations; and this argument is improved neither by a high degree of promised happiness nor by a large number of generations profiting by it. All generations are transient. All have an equal right to be considered, but our immediate duties are undoubtedly to the present generation and to the next. Besides, we should never attempt to balance anybody's misery against somebody else's happiness."