It’s been a couple of months since the first part of Avengers: Infinity War made it’s rounds in movie theatres. It is still running it’s 15th week over here, and I am still pondering what exactly the great eco-centered planetary justice warrior Thanos is basing his chop-half-off-to-save-the-planet scheme for the Universe on.
In all honesty, considering how things are going for the planet Earth right now, it would be a relaxing break for her to have 50% less parasites feeding off of her to say the least. But can life ultimately improve if 50% of the population is killed and erased without a trace such as with Thanos’ snap of a finger? (Side note: There is a fun YouTube discussion about Thanos being or not being able to physically snap his fingers while wearing his huge metal glove. Just search for “Thanos snap” and be entertained!)
Surely we are at this moment talking about a bad guy the fictional Avengers universe who is sort of a megalomaniac – but let’s consider possible criteria and benefits of this idea.
By which method would planet Earth most profit? Can we better her situation by simply eliminating one half of the parasite and which would be appropriate criteria to do it?
(Another side note: This train of thought is kind of the dark-sided counterpart of the sociological argument of who should rule to make the best society. Insert your friendly neighbourhood philosophy 101 professor to elaborate.)
So: Which criteria is most suited to filter out a better humanity?
1. Physiological criteria. By sorting out the strongest and healthiest, we guarantee a long and most likely healthy human population who is able to survive and probably not so bad to look at, either. Why it’s not enough though: Survival is not only based on physical strength and as long as we are talking about our society, technological savy is the way forward. So we must, must include
2. Intellectual criteria. A society must adapt, evolve and improve, and for this to happen, intellectual capacities are of essence.
So, all of that is good and fine, in regards to which ones to keep. But which ones should then be eliminated?
Firstly, we must not only maintain progress but also eliminate regress. This, without empathy, would mean getting rid of those who are lacking mentally or physically (Sparta did have a nice run although society was tough on it’s members – here’s why). It would probably also be smart to rather keep the youngins and toss the one’s who have also made it back into the phsyically or mentally lacking abyss of pre-death.
However, a society must be balanced, otherwise everybody would start feeling rather righteous, and riots and mutiny thus ensue. So, I wonder, how can one preserve a peaceful and efficient society?
This brings us to my main problem: on paper a people can have excellent potential to grow and evolve, however, not all are capable of empathy and emotional intelligence to complement those qualities. Unfortunately, or just realistically, a society not only has a necessity for a certain amount of excellent indivduals, but also needs the glue that holds it together. A person not destined to lead can have a great potential to teach or to support those who explicitly further a certain field, and thus they implicitly further it as well.
So, in reality, even from a pragmatical standpoint it’s a cul de sac, so an arbitrary elimination of fifty per cent doesn’t seem so unreasonable.
Futhermore, if we are not busy being those excellent individuals (because everyone can find at least three reasons why they should be in the good pile, am I right?) it is vital in our society now to be a teacher and an outlet advocating Earth’s plea to let others know of our ecological and empathical responsibilities towards the rest of the parasites. If the place goes boom, we all do equally so boom as well.
However: I don’t mind immediately executing all religious fanatics and child molesters.
But hey – that’s just my two cents.
(Photo from here)