Philosophical Dilemma.

[paulp]

In as far as I can ascertain the reason why the Walia Ibex is under pressure is because of the encroachment of mankind on its habitat.
The manta "all human life is sacred" had great validity back in biblical times when for the sake of tribal survival we were told to "go forth and multiply".
Surely it is time to rethink this fundamental view.
In the parable of the ibex the quick sand represents the whole planet and the two humans our population of 6 billion.
I am not suggesting a human population cull but I am saying that we should be looking seriously at ways of reducing the world population substantially over the next few centuries.

I still think "all human life is sacred", especially if I thought there was a chance it was mine.

I remember watching an episode of the cartoon "Ghostbusters" years ago, when hundreds of ghosts took over New York to have their once in hundred years game of baseball. One team from the good guys and one from the bad. Naturally enormous mayhem persued. One of the ghost busters was talking to some of the ghosts who explained what they were doing, with 1 human soul riding on the outcome of the match. "All of this for only 1 soul" complained the ghostbuster. "ONLY 1 soul????!!!!!" screamed the ghosts.

Anyhow - back from that childhood recollection - If everyone believed that all human life was sacred, I think maybe the population "problem" would solve itself. Take a look at where forecast growth is over next 50 years.

[YoungLiberal]

In the first case: You are standing on a railway bridge. Looking down onto the track you see that it splits in two. On one siding there is the last remaining female Walia ibex (you are an expert on this animal); on the other siding there is a man. On the track there is a run-away train carriage. As things stand it will go onto the siding where the man is. Beside you there is a lever that controls which siding the carriage will go on. By pulling the lever you will save the man but kill the Walia ibex. It is impossible to alert the man (or the Walia ibex) to the danger. Your only choice is to pull the lever and save the man but kill the ibex or to leave things as they stand and allow the man to be killed.

What do you do?

In the second case: the situation is as above but is reversed; if you do nothing the ibex will get killed; if you pull the lever the man will get killed and the ibex will be saved.

What do you do?

In the third case: As in the second case, but you know the man to be a serial child rapist.

What do you do?

I have no idea how this one is a dilemma, wouldn't even think twice.

[Mercurial]

I would save the man because I think the average human trumps the average animal, morally speaking.

[Christel]

In as far as I can ascertain the reason why the Walia Ibex is under pressure is because of the encroachment of mankind on its habitat.
The manta "all human life is sacred" had great validity back in biblical times when for the sake of tribal survival we were told to "go forth and multiply".
Surely it is time to rethink this fundamental view.
In the parable of the ibex the quick sand represents the whole planet and the two humans our population of 6 billion.
I am not suggesting a human population cull but I am saying that we should be looking seriously at ways of reducing the world population substantially over the next few centuries.

I knew you had something in mind.
I'd agree with what you say above.

[cry freedom]

Anyhow - back from that childhood recollection - If everyone believed that all human life was sacred, I think maybe the population "problem" would solve itself. Take a look at where forecast growth is over next 50 years.

Assuming [and it a big assumption] that the world population does level off at somewhere between 8 and 10 billion, it is still only sustainable so long as most of the world live as they are today with only a very small share of the earth's good things.
If the average African for instance, was to have the same standard of living as us I doubt if the planet could stand up to it for very long.
Don't forget that even if we solve the energy crisis a commodity crisis is only around the corner.
The poor ibex in question would certainly have by then followed the dodo and the passenger pigeon into oblivion.

[paulp]

Assuming [and it a big assumption] that the world population does level off at somewhere between 8 and 10 billion, it is still only sustainable so long as most of the world live as they are today with only a very small share of the earth's good things.
If the average African for instance, was to have the same standard of living as us I doubt if the planet could stand up to it for very long.
Don't forget that even if we solve the energy crisis a commodity crisis is only around the corner.
The poor ibex in question would certainly have by then followed the dodo and the passenger pigeon into oblivion.

Countries that have the higher standard of living have lower population growth or negative growth. So if we want to control population growth, it could appear that we can try to encourage raising of standard of living accross the planet, or force some other form of population control on poorer countries? There is no(little) evidence that we are serious about the first option.

Also, don't underestimate mankinds ability to overcome. Oil (energy) is running out, so we have the electric car and huge developments in sourcing energy from other sources, be it solar, wave or nuclear fusion.

[cry freedom]

In the first case: You are standing on a railway bridge. Looking down onto the track you see that it splits in two. On one siding there is the last remaining female Walia ibex (you are an expert on this animal); on the other siding there is a man. On the track there is a run-away train carriage. As things stand it will go onto the siding where the man is. Beside you there is a lever that controls which siding the carriage will go on. By pulling the lever you will save the man but kill the Walia ibex. It is impossible to alert the man (or the Walia ibex) to the danger. Your only choice is to pull the lever and save the man but kill the ibex or to leave things as they stand and allow the man to be killed.

What do you do?

In the second case: the situation is as above but is reversed; if you do nothing the ibex will get killed; if you pull the lever the man will get killed and the ibex will be saved.

What do you do?

[FONT="Arial Black"]In the third case: As in the second case, but you know the man to be a serial child rapist.[/FONT]

What do you do?

Now Cato, You have turned the argument into one about capital punishment.

[zippo222]

I'd let them both sink and get meself well back from that quick sand before the three of us were lost.