"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"BAC" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:57:35 -0000, "Des Higgins"
wrote:


"BAC" wrote in message
snip


If it comes to that then there is nothing precious; I gave you a
definition
of "precious" that involved inability to replace stuff.
You merely chose to ignore that.

Sorry to butt in, but what about viruses and harmful bacteria? I
don't know much about them but I presume the bird flu virus could be a
"native" of the Far East. So, for arguments sake, according to your
definition they would be precious stuff and if threatened by
extinction should be encouraged to thrive.


There's already been debate on a similar question (although not exactly
on
'allowing to thrive') regarding the destruction or preservation of
remaining
samples of smallpox. Having eliminated a dreadful disease 'in the wild',
was
it right to render the organism extinct by destroying samples retained
in
laboratories?


I thought that good old fashioned paranoia drove that particular debate.
While the original idea was to destroy the samples, various states felt
they
couldn't trust other states to destroy their samples. The fear was that
the
only state with smallpox samples had both a proven germ warfare agent, AND
the means of making the vaccine for their own population. Neither USA nor
the USSR were going to let that happen


That is correct. However, IIRC, there was also concern expressed about
whether it was morally justifiable to bring about the extinction of the
organism. Probably just 'spin' :-)