[And even though those are some very insincere condolences, you should probably be grateful that he extended them at all; normally he doesn't even bother with that much.]
I wouldn't consider freedom of choice to be the 'spice of my life,' as you put it; rather, personal choice is the reason we exist. I believe that what we do is what defines us, regardless of how we came to do it - I can understand where emotion may be seen as an illness, or at the very least a contaminant, though I don't necessarily agree one way or the other because whether emotion is truly a disease or not is a completely moot point. We behave as we see fit, and it is those choices that define what we are, and what we are defines our reason for existing.
Disregard, for a moment, the theoretical concept that all life has intrinsic value, as there's no way to say one way or the other whether it does or not. The idea of a soul, the idea of fate, the idea of a higher purpose - all based in theory and not fact. Judging by fact alone, then, what renders any one given individual in a hive-mind scenario any more deserving of life than another? Hypothetically, there is nothing that any given person can do that another couldn't be trained into doing. Everyone is replaceable in such a setting. And if everyone is replaceable, why do any of them, as individuals, need to exist? They contribute nothing except a number, and they fill a slot that could easily be filled by anyone else among the masses.
I don't believe that life has any intrinsic value, but that isn't a reason to render one's life entirely worthless, as it relates to the world.
no subject
[And even though those are some very insincere condolences, you should probably be grateful that he extended them at all; normally he doesn't even bother with that much.]
I wouldn't consider freedom of choice to be the 'spice of my life,' as you put it; rather, personal choice is the reason we exist. I believe that what we do is what defines us, regardless of how we came to do it - I can understand where emotion may be seen as an illness, or at the very least a contaminant, though I don't necessarily agree one way or the other because whether emotion is truly a disease or not is a completely moot point. We behave as we see fit, and it is those choices that define what we are, and what we are defines our reason for existing.
Disregard, for a moment, the theoretical concept that all life has intrinsic value, as there's no way to say one way or the other whether it does or not. The idea of a soul, the idea of fate, the idea of a higher purpose - all based in theory and not fact. Judging by fact alone, then, what renders any one given individual in a hive-mind scenario any more deserving of life than another? Hypothetically, there is nothing that any given person can do that another couldn't be trained into doing. Everyone is replaceable in such a setting. And if everyone is replaceable, why do any of them, as individuals, need to exist? They contribute nothing except a number, and they fill a slot that could easily be filled by anyone else among the masses.
I don't believe that life has any intrinsic value, but that isn't a reason to render one's life entirely worthless, as it relates to the world.