Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 26th, 2005 #1
Jenab
Senior Goatly One
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
Jenab
Default A Question of Moral Priorities for Cosmotheists.

Here it is. No hedging on the conditions; they exist to define the question.

Scenario. A cosmic disaster threatens Earth. For one reason or another, only two courses of action are possible, and they are mutually exclusive: taking one precludes taking the other.

In one course of action, humanity would be saved for 1000 years, after which ALL of Earthly life would certainly perish, without exception.

In the other course of action, humanity would perish at once, but there is a possibility of saving the remainder of Earthly life, which, over time, might evolve into new forms of high consciousness.

Which action does morality call us to choose?

Jerry Abbott
 
Old September 26th, 2005 #2
Chass
Junior Member
 
Chass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 22
Chass
Default

I don't know anything about Cosmotheism and my only religious experience has been with Christianity. Out of curiosity, I will answer this question. My first reaction is to answer in favor of the second option. Why? I think the second choice has just as much uncertainty as the first but given what I see around me; the idea of betting all life on Earth - theoretically the only life in the Milky Way and, as far as we know, the Universe - on the chance that the wiggers will get their act together in the allowed 1000 years is a bit too much. I could go with option one if there were more detail on the general situation. I base that on the assumption that Whites, given the right conditions, could pull off some sort of Noah's Ark type operation. Also in favor of option two; there is supposed to be evidence that 95% of all life on Earth was wiped out once before.
 
Old September 28th, 2005 #3
Brian Stone
Supreme Allied Commander
 
Brian Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 848
Brian Stone
Default

That's a highly contived scenario Jenab, obviously. Why do you ask it?

But to answer your question, I would elect for the first answer. The reason is that frankly I don't really care what happens to Earth if we humans aren't around. Humanity, especially the Aryan version, is what I value.

Moreover, 1000 years is a long time. In that period of time we humans would have advanced our technology to the point that we could easily escape the impending destruction of Earth, if not stave it off completely.

Anyway, given the resource depletion that has occured during the rise of humanity it would be highly improbable for another intelligent species to follow us. We are Earth's one shot at the Galactic Brass Ring, and White people are the best hope of all humanity. Which is why I dabble in WN.

-Brian
 
Old September 28th, 2005 #4
Jenab
Senior Goatly One
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posts: 1,302
Jenab
Default

I should have been less ambiguous.

When I said "all Earthly life," I meant all life descended from species evolved on Earth, whether it's actually ON Earth or not when Extinction Time happens.
 
Old September 28th, 2005 #5
Mike
reasonradionetwork.com
 
Mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 1,475
Mike
Default

A peculiar scenario. Without hesitation I would support #2.

I am not a cosmotheist. But I am certain that living things are good in and of themselves, and that 1000 years of one species, even humans, cannot compensate for the loss of all others, for all time.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenab
Here it is. No hedging on the conditions; they exist to define the question.

Scenario. A cosmic disaster threatens Earth. For one reason or another, only two courses of action are possible, and they are mutually exclusive: taking one precludes taking the other.

In one course of action, humanity would be saved for 1000 years, after which ALL of Earthly life would certainly perish, without exception.

In the other course of action, humanity would perish at once, but there is a possibility of saving the remainder of Earthly life, which, over time, might evolve into new forms of high consciousness.

Which action does morality call us to choose?

Jerry Abbott
__________________

Unplug the Jewtube NOW. / My ideology: [1][2] / "Race is real. The Holocaust is a social construct." - Alex Linder.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 AM.
Page generated in 0.08797 seconds.