But by this standard, *all* of nature shows "lack of respect for
nature". Animals carry on with their lives despite the danger posed by
their predators.
It's not possible for us to live perfectly safe lives. Even if you could
eliminate all possibly dangerous elements from your life (which you
cannot), you still face the certainty of death.
Note that I wasn't saying that the universe is unfair because the kid
got attacked. Bad things happen. I *was* saying that it was harsh to say
that the kid deserved *worse*. It's just all too easy to say that
someone deserved their fate (or worse) because the way they live their
life, ignoring the way that one lives one's own life. I think this point
really got driven into me when the impact of AIDS started becoming clear
and people made judgements about who deserved what (arbitrarily bad)
fate.
How safe, in quantitative terms, must one live one's life to not be
considered an "idiot"? How many of us meet that standard?
I'm sorry to be so humorless and heavy about all this. I just really
have a strong sense of empathy that's hard to turn off.
- Joe
Joseph S. Barrera III (joebar@microsoft.com)
http://research.microsoft.com/~joebar
Phone, Office: (415) 778-8227; Cellular: (415) 601-3719; Home: (415)
588-4801
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views and do
not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.