Once upon a time, my class watched the classic Hitchcock film, “Lifeboat,” in our first-year seminar course. The lifeboat was a microcosm of life. With severely limited resources, nine passengers on a lifeboat were faced with deciding who will live and who will die. Now, an algorithm might give a seriously injured man a lower priority than a young healthy woman. What about us? What right do we have to play God, to declare some worthy and others not?
I pointed out that the Earth is our lifeboat, but unlike a little craft in the middle of a wide sea, our Lifeboat is equipped with untapped resources and staffed with at least a few million brilliant minds. I would argue that it’s possible to improve our efficiency in using Earth’s resources so much that no one will be forced to go without food, shelter, or clothing ever again. We have the technical capability. The question is, do we have the will?
Ideology stands in the way. Some believe “sacrifices” must be made. Some believe the ends – national survival – justify the means – cutting people off from life-saving services and resources. I suppose some think this is “acceptable” if “not too many” die. To think this way, we must believe others are not as valuable as we are, or could be, once the expendables are out of the way. Any lost lives would end up being the price of a better life for those who remain.
This assumes we live on the fictional Kobayashi Maru, the ship for which one or a few must be ordered to die so the rest can be saved. This is the “acceptable casualties” paradigm. I’m reminded that some who identify as “pro-life” vote against providing healthcare, housing, and nutrition for children, disabled people, immigrants, veterans, the elderly, and the poor. Are they expendable?
On the other hand, we don’t have to accept premature deaths as inevitable. We don’t have to accept collateral damage as an excuse for casualties. And we don’t have to accept mass deportations as the only solution for immigration. Before we decide to kill people, or leave them to die for lack of resources, we should probably ask them if they are willing to die for us. On the Kobayashi Maru, the crew understood the risks and were generally willing to sacrifice themselves for their comrades. By what right do we decide the fate of children, disabled people, immigrants, veterans, the elderly, and the poor?
“He’s killing too many people,” the president said. And other politicians discuss “acceptable losses,” “casualty rates,” or “kill ratios.” Just what is an “acceptable” ratio of theirs to ours? 2-to-1? 10-to-1? 100-to-1? In war, people will be killed, but what is the definition of “too many?” For some, one is too many. Yet, no matter what we do, people will die. So, if thousands, or millions, suffer and die, what difference does it make as long as their deaths help to achieve national goals?
The question remains: In our society, who is expendable? Are the wealthy so much better than others that they can decide who gets to live on Lifeboat Earth? Some might think those with the gold should make the rules, but in the past, societies were turned upside down when the many, who were exploited for wealth and power, realized that the rich had no right to decide their fate. [Today is Bastille Day.]
According to authoritarian views, it’s better that some die than risk contaminating everyone with ideas that conflict with the prevailing ideology. Those who don’t or can’t fit the mold are expendable. The usual tactic is to search and destroy journalists, teachers, intellectuals, dissenting judges and religious leaders, activists, minorities, and other “enemies of the state.” Of course, books and other forms of expression that question or critique the ruling class are expendable too.
Some religions believe in collective guilt, that everyone will be condemned if a few are allowed to diverge from their teachings. It seems to me these religions represent an impotent, narcissistic god, but here we are. Whenever religious dogmatists commandeer state power to use as a cudgel against their critics, liberty dies along with real people.
I believe human life is too precious to simply bargain away or to justify killing and premature death as somehow “acceptable.” We aren’t required to follow old paradigms.
So, let’s not accept the proposition that some have a right to decide because they claim to be better than everyone else. Great wealth, temporary power, or skin color does not make anyone a god. Here’s a sobering thought: If we don’t protect Lifeboat Earth, we will all be expendable.
MurrayWorks 