In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > In article <_XqHd.6000$Nu.3438@fed1read04>,
> > "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I believe that existence is a benefit.
> >>It seems that species are incorrectly
> >>divided up into individuals when they
> >>they really are more of a continuum.
> >>So the benefit of existence is to the
> >>parents and the species. To the parents
> >>in that their genes and their need to
> >>continue is fulfilled and to the species
> >>in that it is continued.
> >
> >
> > Continuation of a species requires death. One generation must die off
> > for the next one to survive and thrive. The continuation of the species
> > is possible through the dying off of individual members and over time.
> > What does seem to be a contentious point is when and where the
> > individual members of the species will die so that the species can
> > flourish. There does seem to be a benefit to death.
>
> Not to the individual animal.

The parent dies leaving room and resources for the children, the grand
children and the great grand children. I would think it selfish for
anyone to deny their children and subsequent generations of their
genetic line their time at a successful existence by refusing to die off
when the time comes. Humans just don't have our expiry dates stamped on
our bottoms.