All good posts, thank you!
Stereoman, I think you summed it up perfectly, not "owe", or "obligation", but more like "responsibility" (More in a moment...)
Stootch, you make a very good point regarding propagation.
Julia, I am with you 100% in terms of how I feel as well, with perhaps one caution - Stootch's point I think is frighteningly real... and at the risk of being labeled as one of those people that was noted as only seeing the "commodity value" of humanity, I think the overwhelming shift of population expansion of the so-called 'third world' concommitant with the population *shrinkage* of the 'developed world' may very well be A Bad Thing. I don't know; there are so many factors involved. Should we discourage (or prevent?) people from 'propagating' in places where there are not enough resources? Should we shift resources to alleviate suffering exacerbated by such expansion? Or should we encourage the 'developed world' to propagate *more* to balance things out, perhaps even to provide more resources to everyone? I think the answer is "no" to all of the above - but that is a special complex aspect of the question in this thread, and I think it deserves its own thread. I certainly do not have the answer! (but I would love to see the opinions - another thread though...)
So, back to the question.
As my jumping off point, let me quote Phil:
I was watching an episode of Nova on PBS last night which traced the court case in Pennsylvania about "intelligent design" in the schools. It is clear that many of us are of the view that humans are a special form of life, with a unique set of rights and privileges. I think this thought is itself the downfall of the species.
Whether you believe in a Creator or a happy accident of evolution, I think we *are* special, at least on this planet. However, with this rank comes the responsibilities that Steve mentioned... I once read a thought how 'responsibility' means 'ability to respond'... not just react. I would like to differentiate 'respond' from 'react' in that it means to take action under conscious control, not just react in a preprogrammed way. Chemical reactions react; When we touch a hot stove, we react (hopefully!). But to *choose* to do something that does not benefit us directly takes a conscious response.
In any event, I think it is impractical and short-sighted to not accept that responsibility.
"Impractical", because humans cannot practically exist without the cooperation of other humans, which at times will call for us to do something for the 'collective' that may come at some personal cost.
"Short-sighted", because even though at times we may be called upon to do things that seem to be at a personal cost without any direct benefit, that there still is a benefit from being a member of the collective that one day will be there to meet a need that we ourselves cannot provide.
After all is said and done, however, I can see why some might not want to see it as a "debt" or "obligation"; if it is an actual debt, it can be "demanded", and perhaps not recognized as an act of generosity when it is repaid... I understand that, but I don't agree with it. I think it *is* a debt, and it *should* be recognized as generosity when "paid", but it is still worth doing even when not appreciated or acknowledged.
To reduce human need and human contribution to a balance sheet item would devalue perhaps the most important benefit of all - spiritual growth. I could write a lot more about it, but instead I'll just recommend the book 'The Road Less Traveled' by M. Scott Peck - it's all there. You can call it 'feeling good' or 'doing the right thing', but if you only are willing to do something while at the same time expecting a 'balancing of accounts' at some point, then you are missing out on something far more valuable.
That's my opinion anyway. (As usual I've probably taken an entire page that Julia or someone else could sum up in two sentences!)
