Victoria Gaston
Comments3
The exercise purposefully asks us to ignore any "loopholes", and focus on the dilemma of either saving 100 people now or saving >1000 in the future. What would you choose being these the only 2 choices? What you suggest opens the door to saving everyone, however, the exercise doesn´t include this third option.
1. Toxic Waste Problem:
The 100 people living today, whoever is responsible for this toxic waste, can´t make thousands of people in 200 years pay for this mistake. It is wrong to bury the toxic waste and save people now if we are sure that this will cause even more deaths in 200 years for 2 reasons:
a) the number of people affected.
b) the lack of decision power and choice that the affected people have.
Logically speaking, it makes no sense to think differently if the leak were to happen in 2000 years and kill thousands of people, however, here I wouldn´t be so confident in my choice. To explain why I don´t feel confident, I am forced to bend and question the premises of the experiment. I hope that in 2000 years people will be more advanced and have the means to avoid toxic waste poisoning, so admitting that in 2000 years people will die because of toxic waste buried now would mean to me that we aren´t so bright and great, and we don´t have much potential. This would radically change the way I think about so many other topics.
Saving now 100 people in hopes that, later on, humans would know what to do disregards the dilemma because this implies that nobody dies (and that´s not the case, someone will die, either a hundred or thousands). Saving now 100 people puts the weight of acting on future people´s shoulders. If we didn´t bury the waste, they wouldn´t need to find a solution for it, in the first place.
Let´s imagine that we take option A and save 100 people today in the hopes of finding a way to save thousands in 200 years. Let´s imagine that this equals 6-7 generations of people (if new babies are born every 30 days on average). This means that our grandchildren´s grandchildren would be among the possibly poisoned and killed people. Let that sink in, and now, we should focus on whether future generations will be able to react fast enough.
When is it time to start coming up with ideas to avoid or survive the leak? Is it 5 years before it happens enough? 2 months? How do they know when it will exactly happen? I wouldn´t be very confident in their ability to react in time. The second generation will trust that the third generation will come up with a solution, and the third generation will hope the same about the fourth.
Besides, why would they care? The example of their ancestors will deter them from caring enough. Why should generations 2 to 5 pay for the research and the countermeasures for a problem that they didn´t cause, and won´t suffer? We can apply the same logic to 2000 years.
2. Donating to AMF problem:
It will be fine by me. I would trust the experts and hope that inflation rates really don´t have a negative effect on the donation´s potential, and I would hope that some technology or means needed to fight malaria get cheaper and that my donation can do better in 5 years than today. I would only be worried if AMF closes down in the meantime!
My dearest Wolfi,
I was reading the Zeitung on Sunday morning. You know that I never skip this self-care ritual of mine, and I was surprised to see your familiar face in a photo taken by a journalist in your town covering a Pro-Rasse rally. I am very supportive of you taking action about the causes that you believe righteous, and this made me ponder whether I should join your National Socialist cause in order to enable the best possible version of the homo sapiens.
I first skimmed Darwin´s Natural Selection theory. It´s indeed impressive. I see how you might be worried about spending resources on taking care of the sick and the weak because we don´t want them to have equally sick and weak offspring. We have done this with dogs even well before we developed script! I understand, why should not we do this with our own species? Good, healthy loyal dogs were fed and had offspring. Unfriendly and sick dogs weren´t fed and taken care of, and eventually, their genes died out.
What I however could not integrate into this reasoning is the argument against tanned people, people belonging to other ethnicities or having particular sexual orientations. This is why I spent my Monday afternoon in the library, reading the scientific research on the differences between Aryans and the rest of homo sapiens. In the past, scientists have made mistakes and new scientific methods and tools have proven them wrong. What if we were wrong here as well regarding which humans should be spared to secure the human species´s best possible evolution?
I could not but think of the African slaves in the US. Ancient empires also allowed slavery, but they didn´t target 1 particular race. Anyone: white, dark, short, tall, strong, or chubby could be a slave and often, slaves would buy their freedom and become citizens. I recently had the opportunity to read more about this topic. Do you know why black Africans and not any other people were enslaved by white colonizers? Apart from taking advantage of the already-existing slave trade in Africa by Europeans and the geographical closeness, of course, it wasn´t because they were inferior, quite the opposite.
White colonizers and native people were dying of diseases against which our African fellow homo sapiens had already developed resistance. So what if black Africans have evolved and are biologically better equipped than Aryans already, and whites have been wasting their precious genes by killing them with hard labour for centuries? We could have saved a lot of money trying to cure diseases for which their genes already had an antidote. It would be a shame that we didn´t interbreed earlier.
Please, consider my observations and I will be looking forward to your next letter. I hope you can give me more insight into the White Supremacy Humanist cause, taking my worries into account.
Liebe Grüße,
Your Victoria G.