Conclusion for CRITO Essay I

My conclusion for the first CRITO essay is something akin to the following: as long as we do nothing to hinder the progress of those who are unwilling to join the pursuit progress, it is morally acceptable to leave them behind.

I think that this is certainly true. Many people object to progress on the basis that they would rather have the past, or would rather stay where they are. I think that people have the right to make that choice if they want to, but I do not think that they should have they ability to hinder other people with conservative ideas. For example, many people object to the idea of a mechanical heart because it is 'unnatural' or something like that. These people, I think, should have the right to refuse mechanical hearts for themselves, but with no clear risk in replacing a natural circulatory system with a better functioning artificial circulatory system, they should not have the ability to demand that others reject the idea. Additionally, rather than wasting time and resources arguing with these people we should simply lead by example. When the people who want to stay behind see that people in the progressing countries live to be 300 years old, they will likely decide that they were being unreasonable. I think the realization would be comparable to those who realized that they were being unreasonable with slavery or women's rights.