6 ms·

> so we don't need to kill people for the comparatively minuscule amount in their blood You’re sure that’s what would have happened then?

• JadeNB 7y ago
  No, I'm not iscrewyou (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21349665 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21349665). I doubt that I buy that it would happen, but I think that saying it would is just being mistaken, not engaging in some sort of claim to moral superiority.
  • xkde 7y ago
    I agree in that it is probably largely just a case of being mistaken. However, comments like that often carry an implicit, “those horrible ancient civilizations” context embedded within them. There’s an idea that knowledge (science, economics, technology, etc) and morality are intrinsically linked when in fact, they’re orthogonal.
    • iscrewyou 7y ago
      Because I didn’t mention “those great ancient civilizations” doesn’t imply that I mean the opposite. Any history book will show you the atrocities committed by humans against each other for false reasons that today we say to “how could they?” I was simply engaging in a philosophical question of what if.
      • crpatino 7y ago
        If I may... > Any history book will show you... And any newspaper will show you the atrocities committed by contemporary humans against each other, for false reasons that out forefathers would have said "how could they [not learn a single damn thing we taught them]?" The fact that we do not share their biases do not make our behavior any better, nor our excuses any less petty, dumb or self-serving. And rest asured that our descendants will judge us just as harshly as we judge today those that came before us. Such is human nature.