Guest post: A change in perspective
Note from Dan: Here’s one from J.M. White, a relatively recent but valued regular here on these boards who once lived in a tent for a year.
By J.M. White
It’s not easy to look beyond ourselves. Even in looking over and caring for family members and loved ones, we often do so because of selfish reasons. Sure, we want them to be healthy, happy and succeed in life but if we shirk our responsibilities, there are consequences – they are what drive us and they are what we fear, regardless of what we admit. But what if we could step outside of our own lives?
What would the lives we live look like to an outside observer, one who wasn’t bound to our construct of morality and justice and as such, how would our value be measured?
Let’s say you’re that observer and you watch over an island nation of 1 billion inhabitants. They’ve all the amenities of our modern civilization and they’re thriving.
Theirs is the only inhabitable land on the planet and no other resources are available other than what the island and the surrounding seas provide. You can observe anyone at anytime (in fact, you can see all of them at once if you desire), but you don’t speak or engage them in any way.
Your island is in big trouble. Your population has far exceeded the carrying capacity of your resources. The maximum sustainable population is 250 million people. There have been escalating skirmishes over water, food and of course, money.
The problem isn’t the skirmishes, of course; you can neither care nor do anything about that (please keep in mind that morality is not a concept you know).
The problem is that the deaths from the skirmishes aren’t nearly enough to reverse or even significantly slow population growth. You’ve only one recourse and it’s the only way you may interact with your nation: 4 out of every 5 people on your island must be removed.
This is a one-shot deal. Your only interest is in adjusting your nation to give it the best chance to be as sustainable as possible. Once you’ve made your decision, it’s done. Given that a person’s deeds, piety and/or morality hold no sway with you, how do you make your selections for a purge of 80%?
Keep in mind that the simple answers, like random selection and a lottery system could conceivably leave you with a single gender or non-reproductive population when dealing with an elimination percentage this high. Remember, your goal isn’t to exterminate people; your goal is to give your nation the best possible shot at continuing indefinitely.
The true key to this thought experiment is to become something outside of human. You should have no compassion for these beings, no remorse for their plight; you operate outside of emotion. You should make your selections based on best-case scenarios and probabilities of sustainability.
- Can you determine the fate of an entire race without using human emotion?
- Do you choose on breeding capabilities, genetic advantage, contributions to the society as a whole, something else or any combination thereof?
- Why did you choose as you did?
Now, once you’ve executed your plan, think about this question as yourself (you may return to being human now):
- What did you do with those 800 million people being purged? They were slated only to be “removed”, remember?
- Did you think that you had simply killed them?
- Would you, were you a citizen of your nation, been one of the ones to remain?
Very few people can pull this off while remaining completely devoid of emotion. When it comes to the primal drive for life, however, there is no emotion that won’t cloud our judgment. In what we have here, we can do only what must be done. It’s a hard perspective to see, but it can really open one’s eyes to what makes us “worthy.”
December 20, 2012 - 8:00 AM
I see a lot of scorn on this blog directed at the use of “emotion” in forming opinions, which I don’t understand. A bright person can use logic to argue both sides of many debates. If both sides can – free of emotion- be defended with logic, why bother using it to decide anything? Human input is natural and necessary.
I assumed, in my non-human stance, the I had ceased the existence of those removed. I kept the healthy, strong, and wise across about a 3-4 decade spread, even mixture of males/females. I likely would not have been one of the ones to remain.
I am not certain I understand the point of this exercise. But I adore your point of view nonetheless.
Kristen, emotional reactions are seen as weak by some on this blog. As you say, though, emotions are natural and necessary. I think being tuned in to your emotions makes for more balanced decision-making.
The use of emotion in forming opinions isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but how often does an emotional response lead us down the wrong paths? The Prohibition Era is a good example. How about using the emotions of the American people to start unnecessary wars?
What you say is true in our lives, Kristen, but this is a both a thought experiment an exercise in abstract psychology. To answer your question: you’re supposed to use logic to defend both sides, or more aptly, pare each side down. Then logic should be used to arrive at the best possible [most logical] course of action.
Human input is natural and necessary, unless you’re not human, which is the case here.
…and an exercise in…
Thank you, Miriam. The point is just kind of to get us to step outside of ourselves and try to view our race objectively. By our very nature we view things subjectively, personally.
Emotion is not a bad thing, not at all. In fact, I pretty much feed on emotions from others; my entire mood is determined by the people/environment around me. But there are many who tend to become slaves to their emotions. You can feel them when they walk into a room. We can’t allow ourselves to become slaves of logic, either. However, it is something we must exercise to truly appreciate, and how many of you were going to sit around today and think about how to control the fate of humanity without using emotions?
I agree…we must feel our emotions and understand them, they often do provide valuable and needed input in the decision-making process. But making a decision based solely on a strong emotional reaction to a situation rarely has positive outcomes. Remember the emotions, but do not let them dictate one’s life.
Why would an “observer” have the power to do anything, much less decide who lives, dies, stays or goes?
Believing in miracles and a true God, I would suggest that people learn to work together and preserve resources while planning for the finale, and offer to die first.
Well, since I appear to be non-human and all knowing, there must be a mothership. Therefore, to rid my island of those undesirables [which I get to determine] I’d beam them up and drop them off somewhere in space…if might take a few trips, but, problem solved.
Sorry JM White, I’m being facetious…
Sandi: Without getting too deep into a religious angle, one could argue that God has taken an observer role in humanity. He has the power to end all suffering in an instant, yet He chooses to let us suffer. Whether it’s cloaked as free will or original sin or anything else, God has all the power and uses it not.
Did you attempt the exercise at all or did you immediately search for a way to poke holes in the premise? I’m not being snarky in the least; the question is asked in earnest because you tend to have strong, emotional reactions and I wondered how you, specifically, would react to this piece as I wrote it.
Some people are simply incapable of making decisions without emotion. Well, it not that they can’t, they’re just conditioned to a certain avenue of response. It in no way signifies a flaw in a person, mind you. There’s no right answer to be had here. It’s merely an opportunity to take your mind through an alley with which it may be unfamiliar.
J.M. White, you may get as “deep into a religious angle” as you please. I do not argue or believe “God has taken an observer role in humanity”.
I do not believe I poked a hole in anything. I do not play games, but I answered you with what I would do given how my mind works.
Did I accuse you of being “snarky”? Precisely because I “have strong, emotional reactions” and I believe in God, that IS what I would “do”. Do you not believe me or did you want a 500 word treatise?
I do not presume, even in fantasy, to be worthy of deciding who lives, dies, or is worthy, or not. I admit I am seldom capable of making a decision “without emotion”. I lead with my heart. Always have, always will.
We’ve been hearing this kind of stuff ever since Paul Ehrlich’s Population Bomb of the 1970s. We must practice birth control and become environmental nuts, yada yada or we won’t survive. And of course all the predictions have proven to be garbage. Even the premise of “limited resources’ as predicted by some leftwinger is garbage. It always discounts the ingenuity of mankind to survive.
The answer is simple. Follow the precepts of God, and everything will turn out fine.
Yeah SuzieQ, because we don’t lose millions to famine, drought, and pestilence every single year. I guess those would come under the “precepts of God” heading.
Yeah SuzieQ
That is not my name. I will ask Dan to enforce the new rules and remove the post.
Kristen – according to the avatar, the correct name is
Saint Maria Goretti…the avatar itself is rather blasphemous
So you go from complaining about the “new rules” to demanding they be enforced to the nth degree? Really?
“That is not my name.”
That’s not your picture, either.
Dang typos.
So you go from complaining about the “new rules” to demanding they be enforced to the nth degree? Really?
Yes. I have been told I must write the correct form of everyone’s name. I disagree with the rule, but I follow it. Therefore I expect others to have to abide by the same rule.
I think I have to agree with Sandi on this issue.
You suggest an “observer” somehow becomes a “decider” to solve a problem he watched come to fruition as his island population grew 4x sustainable population. Then you suggest that the “observer” must rid the populace by 80%, believing that would make it “sustainable” (and a one-shot deal).
It seems the logical solution would be that the “observer” make the exact numerical calculations of male/female, death rates, etc… and also assume that his “observees” are not intelligent enough to find better ways to maximize their resources. However, the only “limit” you place on the “observer” is the ability to rid the island of 4 of 5 populace.
Given this: one might question why the “observer” allowed this unsustainable condition to materialize in the first place, and if he could make these decisions why was it not done when the populace was at 2x sustainable or less???
Your premise on one hand, gives way too much “authority” to the “observer” and on the other “way too little”.
I’ve made an executive decision here and decided that anybody is allowed to add a Q or a Z or an X to anyone’s “handle” (or actual name) here on the blog. It’s not necessarily demeaning, preventing which was the purpose of the original rule.
We should consider it as a term of endearment.
Right, Ron MayZ?
I’m happy to be called KristenX.
That works for me Dan.
Shrillary: facetious or not, you provided a viable answer. I very purposely left the construct of the observer open to interpretation (you could be god, alien or a just a really powerful guardian. For example: I didn’t preclude anyone from creating carbon copies of the island to scatter the excess population. You are free to do as you wish with your excess people.
———–
Sandi: I was merely asking the reader to step outside of themselves for a moment – to view the world with different eyes. There was nothing wrong with your answer; I just wanted you to clarify how you arrived at it. I know you “lead with your heart” and that’s why I wondered how you would react to the piece as I wrote it. I’ve always admired the passion you show on this blog. Myself, I’m a fixer and a problem solver and the people that love me tend to look to me in times of crisis, so I tend to push emotion to the side and let logic guide me. I used to react by pure emotion and it got me into a lot of trouble, so I found a better way. It’s thought experiments like these that keep me sharp and slow me down long enough to let cooler heads prevail. They help me get out of my own head for a minute.
———–
Suzie: Thanks for stopping by. Since you’ve expressed a recent interest in my sex life and no interest in participating in my post, I thought I’d take the time here to give you an update: it’s fantastic! I’m “taking care of business” so often that God will surely give me a high-five before he casts me into the fiery depths of Hell… I do hope you’ll pray for me. I know I should be ashamed, but sex is just so darned much… fun.
———–
mike o: you assume that the observer didn’t just stumble upon this world in its current state. You could even cull the population as slaves for some task(s) elsewhere. In this situation, the past is irrelevant.
Dan KZ!
I’ve made an executive decision here and decided that anybody is allowed to add a Q or a Z or an X to anyone’s “handle” (or actual name) here on the blog. It’s not necessarily demeaning, preventing which was the purpose of the original rule.
Gdad said he doesn’t consider “Granddad” an insult, yet I was specifically forbidden from using it.
So, the Civility Summit was pretty much as I said; intended to stifle Suzie and no one else.
So, the Civility Summit was pretty much as I said; intended to stifle Suzie and no one else.
Comment by Suzie — December 20, 2012 @ 8:12 pm
OH NOES! She’s figured it all out, Dan! You know, because having a big confab and establishing criteria for civility on the blog is so much easier than just banning one troublemaker. /sarc
Suzie, you flatter yourself so much that it should be considered a form of abuse.
J.M.
I did not “assume” anything. I tried to understand your “premise”.
Frankly, and unfortunately your “premise” is silly. Good and fun for thought, but useless in reality.
“So, the Civility Summit was pretty much as I said; intended to stifle Suzie and no one else.”
It was intended to cause more unseemly whining by suzie.
It worked.
“Dang typos.”
The e and the q are quite close to each other on the keyboard.
J.M. White, one thing, leading with my heart is not to say that I “react by pure emotion”. It just means that I specifically try to think within the realm of ramifications as well as what needs to be done. Making a decision on what to do has to include how it will affect others, the situation, the long and short term effects and the repercussions. I do not think it is fair to claim a decision is pure emotion or “emotional”, just because a person uses their heart in the equation.
I guess this “exercise” is just too daunting for me to comprehend, but tell me how many of them are right wingers and I may have the key…
21.I’ve made an executive decision here and decided that anybody is allowed to add a Q or a Z or an X to anyone’s “handle” (or actual name) here on the blog. It’s not necessarily demeaning, preventing which was the purpose of the original rule.
Comment by Dan Casey — December 20, 2012 @ 6:36 pm
“Original rule” = EPIC FAIL. Nice Lypocrisy Dan!
And whining by Leon.