A New Value System

 

Put a shark on trial for murder—the gap widens

between man and beast,

Defending the value of life—whose?

 

A boy died today, another tomorrow;

     We are inundated with life and death;

Triumphant, a shark survives one more day.

 

         Earlier in 2003, the LA Times reported a tragic shark attack. A small boy's arm was ripped off, and within the first minutes before first aid was applied, he lost a considerable amount of blood. A heroic man went after the shark in a boat, shot and killed it, and recovered the arm. The boy and his arm were flown to a hospital where, after an unavoidable delay, the arm was sewn back on. Unfortunately, the operation was unsuccessful, partly because of the blood loss, partly because of the time lapse, and partly because of the difficulty of the surgical operations. The boy died.

          While the boy's death was tragic, the fact that the shooting of the shark was not considered a crime, and that the man who killed the shark was considered a hero, rather than a criminal who should have been tried and punished, is worthy of consideration. We might ask, "What else was the poor shark to eat?" Studies have revealed that over the past few centuries, most of the commercially important fish populations in the oceans have been eliminated due to human consumption and carelessness. This includes virtually every species of oceanic fish that grows to a length in excess of two inches. Naturally the shark was hungry and was looking for a meal! She was merely following her natural instincts and came across a tender piece of meat that happened to be human. Of course we don't know, but for the shark, consumption of human flesh on that occasion may have been a matter of life and death. Sharks do not normally eat humans; however, desperation would cause any creature to attack a potential meal.

         The point this unfortunate incident causes us to ponder is the relative value we place on human life as compared to plant or animal life. Most of us humans seem to feel that our lives are worth infinitely (or at least immeasurably) more than the life of a shark or a tree. This has in part to do with our strong emotional attachments to other people that in general greatly exceed our attachments to the other living creatures found on this planet. This value system has been promoted, propagated and established by our social and religious institutions. For example, to kill a human is considered grounds for execution or life imprisonment, and the former punishment is usually considered far more horrible than the latter. In fact, abolition of capital punishment has been advocated by many conscientious people in spite of the tremendous cost to society of incarceration, as even to kill a killer is considered inhumane. Moreover, among many religious folks, murder of another human provides the basis for eternal damnation, perpetuating these values as an important part of our religious and moral training. I have never heard of comparable claims related to the murder of non-human creatures although we share with the other primates and animals similar feelings and thoughts, as any dog or cat lover can affirm. Why do the Ten Commandments not protect animal or plant life or make it a damnable crime to destroy our environment?

         To the ancient scholars who wrote the Bible and other mythological works, the regulations and stabilizing statues put forth were easily rationalized as they made a great deal of social sense. To kill a person, particularly one of wealth or in a position of authority, threatened to disrupt and even destroy the structure upon which society was based. At the time these doctrines were written, the human population was still small, and although it was possible to destroy relatively small parcels of the Earth's surface through fire, by waging war, or by the use of the available technologies of destruction, the overall human impact on the world was minimal. Why? Only because the human population was not excessive.

         The extreme value placed on human life is a major component of our socio-religious backgrounds. The primary goal of ancient political and religious leaders must have been to stabilize human society, rendering the community safe from crime and violence. A more specific goal may have been to protect the positions and possessions of the leaders, thereby maintaining a status quo social structure. Thus, murder of another human being was made the most heinous of crimes, and robbery or adultery was of secondary importance. Yet the need to eat to live required that we kill what we would eat. So, destruction of the plant and animal life on the planet was not written into any of the major religious doctrines as a crime. Condemnation of such actions was not necessary to stabilize the socioeconomic structure and was even counter to the propagation of the human race.

         Contrast this situation with the current one. The human population is now in excess of 6 billion, and much of the world's resources have been exhausted. For example, ground waters, used for irrigation, have been depleted worldwide, and as a consequence of irrigation technologies used in the past, the soil in many parts of the agricultural belt is too saline to allow effective crop production. Agricultural productivity peaked in 1980 and has been dwindling ever since. Yet the human population continues to grow uncontrollably, and every person must kill and eat to live. We have devoured billions of plants and animals, rendering millions of species extinct and endangering many others. Yet even today, this is not a punishable crime in any of the "civilized" countries of the world.

While some scientists advocate the use of genetic engineering to allow crop growth on saline and arid land in order to avoid the consequences of insufficient nourishment, their solution will only postpone the inevitable. Although the human population is already in excess of 6 x 10⁹ and is projected to reach 10 x 10⁹ in a couple of decades, that of any other primate species is less than 10⁶. Thus, the human species outnumbers the next nearest primate species by nearly 10,000-fold! These facts attest to our success as a reproductive species, but not necessarily to our intelligence. By allowing our numbers to increase, we have created a situation which requires that we destroy our environment and eventually ourselves, no matter how carefully we may try to act and no matter what scientific precautions are taken. What can be done to prevent this nearly inevitable tragedy?

         Staggering projections suggest that by the year 2040, 40% of the world's population will be starving, and a larger percentage will suffer from malnutrition if drastic preventative action is not taken. This means that in less than 40 years, we can anticipate human suffering on a scale never experienced on Earth before. Moreover, with the human population increasing and virtually all wild animal and plant populations decreasing, pathogenic viruses, bacteria, fungi and protozoans that currently invade these other organisms will benefit from and therefore adapt to humans and their domestic animals. This means that epidemics like those caused by the AIDS virus and the SARS virus are likely to arise with increasing frequencies, and unexpected epidemics of domestic animals will exacerbate starvation conditions. We must therefore consider what human population the Earth can reasonably support and take measures to bring our population down to such a level. If we don't, loss of the Earth's resources will occur in appalling proportions.

I estimate that our planet cannot comfortably maintain a human population in excess of about one hundred million if we assume a lifestyle commensurate with American standards. This is the maximal level that I believe should allow reversal of the damage to the Earth's environment caused by humans over the past few centuries. This value is still 100-fold greater than the population of any other primate species! In other words, I believe we must reduce our numbers to about 2% of the present value so that mankind can live in harmony with nature and allow restoration of our resource base. Only then can we protect the human population and the populations of the many life forms that sustain us.

         In order to achieve this goal, we must bring about a drastic change in human values. We must recognize that human life, though the most precious of commodities to us, is also the most costly. Importantly, we need to make education available to all world populations. Birth control that will protect all world inhabitants from the consequences of unwanted pregnancy must be freely available. It might also be advisable to limit birth by law, or by imposition of penalties for the socially irresponsible. Thus, it may be necessary to limit reproductive freedom in order to keep our other freedoms out of jeopardy. We can also encourage forms of sexual behavior that are less likely to result in procreation, and we must provide assistance to individuals who do not find life worth living and want to terminate their lives. Most of all, we need a new value system - a new way of thinking. Our numbers have created a new world with a new set of conditions that requires that we reshape the rules that govern society.