|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
So you're saying there's a moral imperative? Or is it a big rationalization? Why do you say all of those things about "populations of organisms" when human beings are the only genus that engages in any activity in the same behaviors that our politicians debate. There is no control group for human beings...unless Bubbles has been secretly designing and building a robotic surgery device... |
Fundamentally, the question is about to what extent we as a population of (human) organisms should expend resources to keep our individually weaker members alive. We are far from the only species that must strike some balance in that regard, although the basic tension plays out in much more sophisticated contexts for us than, say, a pack of wild dogs.
I don't really see it as a moral question; for me, the issue is what produces the greatest advantage over time for us as a species. You asked whether, objectively, we would "all be better off in the long run if we didn't pour our limited resources and energy into taking care of the weak." My answer is that the answer is unknown.
Suppose you had two nearby populations of primitive humans. In one group the members never assist weaker members. They compete vigorously; and those who cannot compete successfully perish. In the other population, weaker members are provided with support from those who are more successful.
Now suppose each group continued to behave this way for countless generations. There is little doubt that, individually, the members of the first group will develop a greater individual capacity for survival. But, on the other hand, if the two groups were to go to war, the smart bet would be the second group: they would doubtless be more numerous and better able to work together. The first group's warriors would be burdened by the knowledge that any wounds they suffered would disadvantage them in intra-group conflicts later on, while those of the second group would know that they would face no such disadvantage and would thus likely exhibit less risk aversion.
And these disadvantages would not exist only in the case of direct conflict: barriers to cooperation and calculated risk-taking would adversely affect the first group's ability to respond to many other types of adversity.
In this manner, although the humans in the first group may superficially appear to be the "fittest," in fact as a population they are the weaker ones. On the other hand, of course, it's equally possible to imagine a population that expended far too many resources supporting its weakest. So, when we implement programs to protect the "weak," it may be precisely because doing so increases our fitness as a whole. It may also be to our disadvantage. There's probably no way for us to know one way or the other; at best we can make an educated guess as to what the short or intermediate term consequences would be.
| quote: | | Do you believe in God? From my limited time here and brief observations of you, my guess would be no. But aren't you leaving a lot to fate if you agree with a lot of the stuff above? I guess it comes down to a science vs. religion article...I just find the contradictions that I brought up are somewhat at odds and don't ever hear anyone talk about them. |
No, I don't believe in god. The way I see it, we don't have a choice but to leave it up to fate: we simply do not have enough information to know the empirical answer to the question of whether we would be better off without expending resources to help the weak.
|
