In article t>,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> > 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 parent would probably gladly trade some room and
> resources for some additional time.

Greedy and selfish. Frankly, I just don't see the difference if someone
dies at 72 or 75. It's only time.