Survivor!

Matt Cramer cramer at unix01.voicenet.com
Tue Oct 24 06:19:22 PDT 2000


This ought to confuse the conspiracy theorists. The libertarian debating the darwinist. :-)

On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Christopher Susi wrote:


> Not Unfit, and I would agree with that. They just happened to be in a
> location that isn't resourcefull. My point was, when they arn't part of a
> structure where they are a symbiont (and this may be for a group down to an
> individual) why are they worth saving?

For that matter, why is anyone worth saving? I think Wojtek, even though he ignored the initiation of force issue Doug accurately added, showed the absurdity of this idea's natural conclusion. All actions are not based upon a simple risk vs. reward calculation. An oversimplification would be to say that morality originates when one recognizes their own "good luck" and another's "bad luck". Essentially, "there but by the grace of god go I", or "that could be me". That's the essence of compassion, and the essence of empathy. Humans are pack animals, like our genetic cousins, and we have natural, evolved reactions to suffering in the rest of the pack.

A lot of the ROBOT'S programming has to do with controlling this natural reaction to suffering in fellow human beings. Heh.

So what of other packs, if that is how we might characterise people in poor countries? Well, this brings us to your statement regarding symbiosis. One of our other natural, evolved traits, intelligence, has allowed us to become aware of extremely complicated symbioses. The Butterfly Effect. The Gaia Theory. Etc. We have near instantaneous communications with all corners of the globe. We have rapid transport to remote regions. An uprising of starving rebels in some far away land can cause a stock market crash and land you and I out on the streets without jobs. Nuclear waste dumped into a river on the other side of the world can end up in our drinking water.

Alright, enough melodrama. I think you get my point. If the empathy/compassion argument is not persuasive, then perhaps the symbiosis one is. I realise that you are merely engaging in debate and not asking to be persuaded, i.e. to have morality justified for you, personally. There is no easy answer regarding a random starving child in some poor country. The difficult question is, how many are too many? When DOES it become a concern?

Matt

-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ Puritanism: the haunting fear that somebody, somewhere, might be having a good time.

-H.L. Mencken



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list