Morality of Preservation of the Human Race in an "End-of-the-world Crisis"

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by OhioanKid

Should we place the importance of the human race over the rights of the individual?

What rights would the individual entertain absent the existence of the human race?

Should everyone have an equal chance at surviving, as was suggested in the movie, or should the "best genes" be chosen?

Since the "best genes" can't be equated with who or who doesn't attain wealth or power, "genes" should be the least relevant criteria. But should ever individual be afforded an equal chance, well clearly this sort of the discussion is the very nature of the lifeboat experiments.

Personally, I would think that the cross section of those chosen in a 2012 scenario should represent a cross section of individuals with the skills and knowledge to insure the success of repopulating another world. That would not only include scientist, captains of industry but those with the requisite skills to put ideas into practical applications.

[Occam's Bikini Wax]

Originally Posted by OhioanKid

After having watched the movie 2012 last night, I was curious: could saving the human race in the wake of a worldwide disaster be justifiable?

I've seen arguments on this before, that the human race should always go on, that we were meant to be continuous, and others. But is that true? Should humanity really go on if the only way to do so is to commit, as Dr. Helmsley put it, "an act of cruelty"?

I think it brings up an important moral point. Should we place the importance of the human race over the rights of the individual? Should everyone have an equal chance at surviving, as was suggested in the movie, or should the "best genes" be chosen?

Discuss, my friends.

If humans are able to save the race from destruction, then that means we are worthy of being saved. If not, oh well. Survival of the fittest, and something else will evolve to be the dominant species.

[Konraden]

Originally Posted by Occam's Bikini Wax

If humans are able to save the race from destruction, then that means we are worthy of being saved. If not, oh well. Survival of the fittest, and something else will evolve to be the dominant species.

Agreed. We have these giant mushy lumps of flesh sitting inside a hard and dense dome of bone. We better use them. If we are capable of saving ourselves, we should save ourselves.

As for who should be saved is an interesting question. Random selection is a poor method, because the majority of people in the world are uneducated and unskilled, not very good specimens to save if you're trying to carry on our human societies.

I can't say we would need politicians as much as we would need political scientists and theorists--those with actual study of how politics work, not just the victims of politics. Likewise, we would need to draw specialized scientists from almost every field of study. We would require a plethora of historians specialized in every region of every recorded time frame of history, as well as our writers, creators of our culture. Major artists of the time should certainly be invited to the arks as well.

As was noted in the film--there was extensive waste inside the arks themselves. Stainless steel goblets were provided for each "hotel suite" of space, which could have held as Helmsley pointed out, ten people. As such, we could easily find the best and the brightest of all the major areas of study, and still have space for open lotteries for the rest of the population.