MORALS, PRAGMATISM AND NATURAL SELECTION

In "natural selection", outcomes are always based upon the vitality of each individual.  He lives or dies by some "natural" happening.  There is no interference to modify outcomes and no preferences are shown.  In our society this notion is discarded and those, who under natural selection would have perished, are saved from what would have been an early demise as nature intended.  Often, for a number of reasons, those saved are given preferential treatment over others who cannot afford to be saved.  Although the "survival of the fittest" was intended to weed out the "unfit", we see fit to ignore that.  What follows, of course, is the enlargement of the number of unfit in the population.

If you are beginning to think that I'm advocating we let people die, stop there.  That is not what I'm saying.  This discussion is about what happens when we "mess with Mother Nature".  Under current conditions, we are headed for a certain rationing of care and preferences will naturally follow.  Who is more valuable to society or who contributed to whose campaign.  Natural selection having been thwarted, human selection will fill the void.  Our history of rampant, flagrant political favoritism should tell us that.

The questions which arise are difficult to answer while trying to remain faithful to our human compassion.  Too much compassion allows the problem to expand forever and the pragmatic approach is reprehensible.  This is called a dilemma but, nevertheless, decisions have to be made.  Thinking about them now may help us be able to decide when the need arises, and it will.

So many times, I find the lifeboat dilemma appropriate to illustrate some of our most difficult choices.  If the lifeboat is dangerously full and there are still people in the water, is it more moral to save those in the boat and abandon the others to a certain death or to allow the others into the boat and have everyone perish?  I'm not at all certain that the question should be one of morality but one of pragmatism and common sense.  If we can make a pragmatic decision in this case without moral implications, why can't we also allow people to die when their time has come to save those who follow?  This may not be a perfect analogy, but it does frame the question.

As the earth's human population ages and total population increases, natural resources, food and other necessities will be in short supply.  The lifeboat will be full.