(no subject)

I was thinking about this article, and the argument it makes against gay marriage. To whit:

"It compares gay marriage to a broken window on a city street. Civilization is exceedingly fragile. One broken window is an invitation to more broken windows, more vandalism, descending ultimately to chaos. Smart city governments thus act quickly to check even minor acts of incivility.

Marriage is our most fragile civilized institution. Since the 1960s, the ancient ideal of a child being raised by his parents has been greatly weakened."( Read more... )

(no subject)

How would one weigh the value of human lives against the value of cultural artifacts, works of art, and knowledge? I'm thinking a little of the horror at the alleged sacking of the Iraqi museums, and the public outrage over the destruction of the carvings of the Buddha by the Taliban. People are killed all the time with rather less outrage. It seems that for many people there is at least a gut response that some of these great works of humankind are indeed worth more than the lives of people. (And of course, they can potentially endure, whereas all people will die, sooner or later.)

But that is gut reaction. In practice, if you had to choose, how would you make the choice? If you could delay the death of one person, or ten people, so many years, would you do that, or save the library at Alexandria? If there was a fire in a museum, would you be working to evacuate people or artifacts? If you were crashed on another world, without any means of contacting civilization, would you burn your books to keep your children warm?