I guess I should have said this last time.

I feel that I must offer my deepest apologies for any confusion that I may have caused with my last post. In case anyone was under the impression that I am subconsciously chained to some outdated morality, let me assure you that I am not. What seems on the surface to be a glaring omission from "maiming two birds" was in no way due to an archaic concept of good & evil. Certainly we are beyond that (thanks Fred).

The omission I am speaking of is, of course, the genocide option. This is 2008 and the last time I looked we had already surmised that morality is subjective and varies from culture to culture. So why did I not include genocide as an alternative in my last post? Simply put, it is cost prohibitive.

Remember, Tibetan Buddhists believe in Samara (rebirth). That effectively means that the same souls could possibly have to be terminated over, and over, and over. As you can plainly see, the costs of such a program could be astronomical!

The omission, therefore, should not be viewed in light of some "western morality" but should be seen for what it is - simply a matter of fiscal responsibility. And that transcends culture.

Again, please accept my most sincere and heartfelt apologies for any confusion I may have caused.