The Ethics of Importance - Reflections on Tsunamis

Why we pay attention

Published on December 29, 2004 By Phil Osborn In Philosophy

Ok, my beef is with the idiots who torched the library. THE Library. You know, the world library at Alexandria, where the collected wisdom of virtually all mankind West of India and East of the Americas resided. All that lore and history and science and myth and poetry - gone. And who is to blame? Allegedly the Moslem hordes, proclaiming that the only book necessary is the Koran. But wait, it turns out that the library was burned, partially or totally, on several occasions over the centuries. Nonetheless, the tragedy of the distillation of human progress going up in flames like a piece of worthless timber almost makes me weep just to contemplate it.

Then there was the Thera Event , which devestated the ancient world around 1600 BC. There is arguable evidence that it was involved directly in the fall of the highly advanced Minoan civilization to Greek raiders and pirates, scavanging in the aftermath. The Minoans were centuries ahead of anyone else at the time in technology and art, and their destruction by relative barbarians set human progress back, perhaps by several centuries.

My mind turns to these two cases because for me the advance of civilization and reason and science and technology and art is important. People have died for as long as there have been people. One day soon we may fix that - or at least drastically postpone our demise, and when we do, it will be mostly because of all the advances made before us. The recent disaster in the Indian Ocean area was not totally unimportant - certainly not for the individuals directly involved - but in real terms, it was a drop in the bucket, unlikely to have any significant impact on general progress. Sure it looks horrific, and the personal tragedies are just as real there as anywhere else, but how many people bothered to really pay attention to the mass murders in Ruanda? As opposed to the next episode of "The Practice?" Or, what was happening in the Chandra Levy investigation?

We discount the triumphs and tragedies of others largely based on their percieved relevance to our own personal needs and goals. This is inevitable, almost tautalogical. As I said, for me that progress of humanity in terms of science and technology - and ethics, etc., is critically important. There ain't no angels out there waiting to rescue us or reward us for being good. There's just us, and we are within shouting distance of some real breakthroughs - such as indefinite life extension. I'm willing to put considerable effort into making it happen, as I hope to be one of the beneficiaries. And, even if I personally don't make it to "the Singularity," what greater task is there to be a part of. But, we could blow it.

The librarians were doubtless proud beyond measure of the great library of Alexandria, with its million volumes, an almost inconceivable triumph for its time. And the Minoans no doubt felt secure in their advanced culture that they were the leading lights of humanity, destined to ultimately illuminate the world with their accomplishments. Never could they have concieved that it all was going for naught, that only thousands of years later would archeologists discover how far they had progressed, sifting through ancient rubble and ash.

Like the mass murders in Ruanda, we implicitly discount events separated from us by time or distance. In terms of actual impact on humanity as a whole, the fall of the Minoans may have been worse than the holocaust of World Wars 1 and 2 combined, but it takes a bit of study to parse out what is important in this long-term sense, and what is trivial.

Aristotle was important. His ideas were the intellectual springboard of Western and ultimatley global progress, laying the foundation for logic and the scientific method. Similarly, Isaac Newton, who, building on the base of logic created by Aristotle, demonstrated that the world could be understood as a whole, an insight perhaps as important as his virtual creation of physics and calculus. From that implicit insight into the ultimate nature of reality, we see springing forth diverse applications, such as John Locke and the host of philosophers whose aim was to bring to human relations a similar coherancy, and whose efforts resulted in our modern democracies and whatever superior institutions may follow them in future times, or the medical pioneers who refused to accept the idea that disease was simply a fact, a divine judgement.

Perhaps there were Aristotles or Newtons or Lockes among the victims of the recent Tsunamis. That is probably unknowable, but statistically unlikely. And it does not appear that anything the equivalent of Minoan Crete has been lost. While we mourn the useless deaths and the destruction of the life work of tens of thousands of our fellow humans, before we simply go on in our daily lives, we might ask what allows us to go on, forgetting such an event in the days and weeks that follow. Should we feel guilty? Or should we take this as a sign that perhaps we ought to inquire into what it is that we really value in fact, if not in lip service?

The great unknown territory for most people of today's humanity is in fact the question of real value. What is value? Is it just something we instinctively know, from supernatural causation, or embedded irrevocable instinct? That makes little sense - particularly from the basic Western perspective that the universe is knowable, which itself requires the corrolary that we have the capability of testing and challenging our most fundamental beliefs, yet most people are clearly adrift when they come to this topic, taking whatever melange of socially absorbed values as if God handed them down. And many people do exactly hold that opinion. God decides what is of value and you had better go along with the great dictator in the sky - or else!

But from that standpoint, taken literally, whatever God has allegedly dictated should be the most important thing in your life. And unless you think that God has some preference for people born in North America, or perhaps with paler skins, then the deaths of tens of thousands of unforgiven doomed sinners in SouthEast Asia should be considered a major tragedy, and you should be dedicating your very lives to doing something about it... Right?

But, regardless of all the lip service and the sermons for the Sunday Christians, most of us will go on surfing, gambling in Vegas to prove that we're winners, buying monster RVs, and in general doing what makes us feel good. But that's begging the question now, isn't it? What makes us feel good is when we see our values realized. We still simply accept a set of values without question, with perhaps consistency our only check or moderator.

My contention here is that most of us are essentially zombies, not because of any genetic deficiency or demonic possession, but simply because we never challenge those basic assumptions we accepted when we were too young and ignorant to do otherwise. Values are chosen! They can be correct or incorrect, like any other choice. Breaking free of the idea that any particular set of values cannot be questioned is essential to being human and free. A person who does not challenge his values is basically a slave to the choices of others. In fact, it is worse than mere slavery, as the slave can still plot and work to free himself, but those who unthinkingly accept values and refuse to question them have no hope of freedom. Willy-nilly they follow like robots the program they have been handed, shying away in terror from doubt, lest God or their Mother, whose disembodied voice has taken up residence inside their skulls, strike them down for their arrogance.

And the costs of that failure are a LOT more catastrophic than any mere geological event.

My reading suggestions for those who might think that this is a real issue in their lives:

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle

The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner

The above authors are not authorities - although some will doubtless try to take them that way - but rather guides, fellow explorers in a land virtually undiscovered. As such, they can be expected to take many false turns. But, they are not responsible for your choices - or failure to chose. You are. It is your choice to be human or robotic slave.

Have a good trip.

Comments

scatter629

on Dec 30, 2004

How true. I think the important thing is getting the message in plainspeak to ordinary people and motivate them to be extraordinary for their survival. It's more of an art - something that's quite divorced from assigning the class to read three books about why we should pay attention to books ,continually question and value life.

Pam Johnson

on Dec 30, 2004

Great article, well written, and extremely thought out. As someone who has read a great about Greek and Minoan history then you probably know or at least realize that the period you refer ("Thera Event") to brought about what historian's call the first "Dark Ages.' Most people who read this article will not be able to equate the period in human history to a dark age because of the destruction to some of the great libraries around the world. Even though the Alexandria library wasn't built until sometime during the third century BC a good deal of other libraries built before the third century for some unknown reason were always destroyerd by invaders and raiders who took over a country. Because of that first dark age of humans we lost a large part of history that might have helped guide us into the future.

Should we as humans feel sorry for the lost of life in the Indian Ocean nations. . .Yes and no. Yes because if is the human thing to do (to some this may be a stupid statement, howevr, it is important to remember that we are human also). And, no because it was nature that caused the death of these people. There was no God involved here only an act of nature. Thus, it should be clear to all that nature has no feelings as to who or whom it destroys.

There is a "Albeit" here that is in a couple of months when this is no longer a sellable item it will be forgotten to nothing more than a footnote in history just as the lost of 35,000 individuals when Krakatau erupted.

Pam

mgosh

on Dec 30, 2004

My contention here is that most of us are essentially zombies, not because of any genetic deficiency or demonic possession, but simply because we never challenge those basic assumptions we accepted when we were too young and ignorant to do otherwise. Values are chosen! They can be correct or incorrect, like any other choice. Breaking free of the idea that any particular set of values cannot be questioned is essential to being human and free. A person who does not challenge his values is basically a slave to the choices of others. In fact, it is worse than mere slavery, as the slave can still plot and work to free himself, but those who unthinkingly accept values and refuse to question them have no hope of freedom. Willy-nilly they follow like robots the program they have been handed, shying away in terror from doubt, lest God or their Mother, whose disembodied voice has taken up residence inside their skulls, strike them down for their arrogance.

Interesting article I'll give you points on the history and the truth that you have said. History is the truth and there's no denying it. The truth rings out, the start of the dark ages, 1000 years of war, famine, death, destruction, and the human development has shut down to nil. Values are chosen true always have been also true. But the choices we make, based upon the values and the decisions at hand shape us.

I would not say I am a sheep because I believe in the one and my mother's guidance. I have taken the time out to evaluate what was said and I believe in my heart it’s true. I do not say it with arrogance but with what I believe is true. If you ask me why I will reply I have chosen it and that is my choice. Just as it is your choice not to. Freedom of will it’s united the believers and non-believers everyone knows it’s all about your choice.

It is truly a tragedy what happened, the disaster that reaches global wide, and yet within that I realize how powerless I am to stop it, to even assist. I go to work and continue with my life because I am powerless to do anything to stop it, or even know where to assist. So I go on with my day the best I can and ask myself why it happened? No answer. Why are one people fated for prosperity and another for slaughter? No answer. Is there an ultimate answer a theory that explains everything? Yes. Somewhere out beyond the cosmos there is an answer, and its comprehension is beyond me.

So I say thank ya for your article, and I say thank you for sharing your introspective view. You caused me to pause and take sometime to think and to reach beyond myself for a few moments in my life today. For that I say thank ya as well. Do I agree with your points? Some yes some no. That's why I thank ya again, because again it's making me check my values, my beliefs and making me think about the basic assuptions I hold true.

SBArdam@aol.com

on Dec 30, 2004

If each individual chose their set of values it would lead to anarchy. The rule of law is necessary to bind civilization into functioning societies. In societies that function it's necessary for it's constituency to work together in common causes and shared common values or there would be no civilization as we know it. Values can be positive or negative and for better or worse we all have them. Aristotle and Galileo were giants upon whose shoulders we today stand, but to belittle this greatest of human tragedy by implying that it's really not important in the scheme of life is beyond my comprehension and shows a smug, misguided intellectualism. My god ( and I don't believe in god), five million lives imperiled and you don't think it's of any great consequences. Have you no sense of compassion.

Phil Osborn

on Dec 31, 2004

Reply By: scatter629 Posted: Thursday, December 30, 2004 How true. I think the important thing is getting the message in plainspeak to ordinary people and motivate them to be extraordinary for their survival. It's more of an art - something that's quite divorced from assigning the class to read three books about why we should pay attention to books ,continually question and value life.

I don't think that it is so hard to get the message out that you are responsible for your own life and especially the beliefs you hold. However, there are a lot of institutions dedicated to contrary principles. If this is all just a game played by unknowable Gods, then what is the point in trying to take responsibility? Better to just try to figure out what the Gods - or the authorities (which works out to the same thing in practice) - want, right? And that game is repeated a few billion times over around the globe, at great profit to the institutions that promote it. Try reading Stirner. Use the link I provided and you can read him on line. He didn't have the word "meme," but he thoroughly understood the concept.

The real lack, however, is a failure to have a stake in the future. The "Pie in the Sky" keeps us from focussing on real challenges and opportunities right here and now on this planet. We are living in the most interesting times ever, with the real possibility of destroying our selves completely as a species, at the same time that we have the chance to transcend our genetic heritage and become our successors, evolving into new kinds of beings with lifespans measured by the deaths of stars. There's nothing in science or philosophy to prevent us from taking this next logical step, yet at the same time we are our own worst enemy.

As an aside, one thing I've noticed lately is that of all peoples on our globe today, the Japanese seem to have really grasped the onrushing future. Take a look at the recent movie "Ghost in the Shell," or the series it was based upon. This gives me hope.

Phil Osborn

on Dec 31, 2004

Reply By: Pam Johnson Posted: Thursday, December 30, 2004

... Even though the Alexandria library wasn't built until sometime during the third century BC a good deal of other libraries built before the third century for some unknown reason were always destroyerd by invaders and raiders who took over a country. Because of that first dark age of humans we lost a large part of history that might have helped guide us into the future.

I note that the wonderful PBS series on Sparta mentioned that the Spartans we know about directly were not even the real Spartans, who had been obliterated by the Thera Event, like so many of the millions of people lost around the Mediterranean at the time. The "Spartans" we know about moved in and decided apparently to adopt the name and the semi-mythical history centuries later.

Phil Osborn

on Dec 31, 2004

Reply By: SBArdam@aol.com(Anonymous User) Posted: Thursday, December 30, 2004 If each individual chose their set of values it would lead to anarchy.

AND???? You might want to look at the Stirner book on line that I linked to in my article. Anarchy - the absense of the "Archon," i.e., the monopoly state - has a long and interesting history. It does not necessarily mean the same thing as "chaotic" or "disorderly" or "destructive." Ancient Ireland maintained a functioning anarchy for several centuries during the time when the rest of Europe was falling into chaos called the Dark Ages, and during that time Ireland was the last safe repository for scholars and books.

The rule of law is necessary to bind civilization into functioning societies.

Well, certainly some kind of law is necessary. But there is "law" and "law." For example, Ireland during the period I mentioned opperated under the "common law," which is entirely about equity. There are no punishments in the Common Law and no rules forcing you to accept someone else's values or beliefs, just a system to try to keep things fair. Opposed to that, we have "positive law," such as the Roman law, which is the law of the conquerer, which always imposes the values of the ruler upon the ruled.

In societies that function it's necessary for it's constituency to work together in common causes and shared common values or there would be no civilization as we know it. Values can be positive or negative and for better or worse we all have them. Aristotle and Galileo were giants upon whose shoulders we today stand, but to belittle this greatest of human tragedy by implying that it's really not important in the scheme of life is beyond my comprehension and shows a smug, misguided intellectualism. My god ( and I don't believe in god), five million lives imperiled and you don't think it's of any great consequences. Have you no sense of compassion

As I stated originally, for the people involved, this is certainly a great tragedy. But similar tragedies happen all around us. A girl I loved was killed when I was in college, along with all five of her brothers, by a drunk driver. I wept over that. The numbers do not matter. Millions of people died tragically in the World Wars. Is it just that that was 60 years ago that makes us regard it as simply dry history? Yes, we can relate to the victims of today on the level that it could have been us, while we could not go back in time to World War II, so that could not have been us.

Somewhere in the vast universe, there is probably an entire species of intelligent beings capable of magnificent achievements who were destroyed just because they were too close to a supernova... Should we be weeping over them as well? My issue is how to put such things in proper perspective. What are values? Why do we need them? What should this really mean to us?

raghu.K

on Dec 31, 2004

the writing is thought prvoking.My thinking that the LIVES on this planet EARTH have to rededicate themselves for future of THE PLANET ,Homo Sapiens being more advanced in thought should take the lead, has been reaffirmed.The time has come for the people living on this earth to think together ,make decsions in respect to life on this earth as a whole,not in respect to particular race,crreed or country.Well if it is all nothing but destiny,Let us all choose it collectively.

Phil Osborn

on Jan 03, 2005

Reply By: raghu.K(Anonymous User) Posted: Friday, December 31, 2004 the writing is thought prvoking.My thinking that the LIVES on this planet EARTH have to rededicate themselves for future of THE PLANET ,Homo Sapiens being more advanced in thought should take the lead, has been reaffirmed.The time has come for the people living on this earth to think together ,make decsions in respect to life on this earth as a whole,not in respect to particular race,crreed or country.Well if it is all nothing but destiny,Let us all choose it collectively.

Agreed in sentiment if not detail, with reservations about collective action. We think of planet Earth as being semi-sacred, but in reality, most of the planet is a total waste, useful only for warping space so that things accellerate towards its center of mass - what we call gravity. That's 99% of the planetary mass, probably more. When we start building those space elevators or orbital towers that NASA has recently started investigating as a feasible engineering project, we will have the option of essentially unraveling the planet, converting it into millions habitats in space - and/or a ringworld with a million times the surface area - which will require using a lot more mass than the Earth can provide, but there are some BIG planets out there that probably will never sustain life, such as Jupiter or Saturn that we can take apart for construction material.

With a million times the useful surface, there is room for a whole lot more biodiversity and experimentation than can be sustained on the Earth. There's also the accompanying sentiment that DNA based life now present on the Earth is somehow sacred. It IS true that we are stupidly losing valuable DNA models in the form of all the species that are and soon will be going extinct. That reflects our primitive concepts of property rights, which as often as not meet Proudhon's definition that "property is theft."

Ultimately we will be able to recreate the species from preserved DNA, assuming we have any, and not long after, we will have the technology to design all kinds of new species to order that will be a lot more complex and interesting than anything random mutations and natural selection can produce. I personally doubt that we will stick with carbon much longer anyway.

Getting from here to there is the problem. So long as we keep thinking in terms of limited lifespans and petty goals and values based on them, we will naturally fight over the pie. The pie can potentially get a LOT bigger with appropriate technology, however. The key is to rethink our value structures and how they are implemented via our primitive social technology.

An example is provided by the tsunami disaster. Look at all the stupid SNAFUs that were human error based in primitive, barely functional institutions. The Indians had plenty of time to get warnings out to tens of thousands of the ultimate victims, after the first waves had already hit, but the message was sent to the wrong person. Over and over, the bureaucracies in various nations hesitated for fear of being blamed for issuing spurious alerts, and then tens of thousands paid for that stupid bureaucratic decision process with the lifes and millions more with their fortunes, homes and livelihood.

In 1970, I took a graduate course directly from Dr. Carl F. Kossack, then Head of the Mathematics Dept. at the University of Georgia, on statistics and computer programming. This was the maiden year of the course, and the course book, by Dr. Kossack, was given to the two of us in the class by Dr. Kossack, in chapter increments, xeroxed. Dr. Kossack had just returned from setting up the master programming system for the government of India to use in allocating agricultural resources .

One thing that I got from the course was the importance of making decisions in a rational manner. As applied to disasters like the tsunamis, this would have meant - had such a process been in use - that you took the statistical likelihood of such a disaster and multiplied it times the estimated cost.* This sets a limit for how much resources should be devoted to preparing for it, and it also dictates that you should be devoting that much. My guess is that the warning system that resulted from such a calculation would have saved the majority of lives lost.

*The reality is a bit more complicated, as you are dealing not with a single liklihood, but rather a range of possibilitites of varying probability, with associated costs also occupying ranges of probability. You have to always take into account the likely accuracy of all your estimates, of course, and then there is the probability that THAT assessment is accurate. However, it is doable. The math is there, the computing power is there and only the political will is lacking.

A true computer model for assessing disaster response that could be used to allocate limited resources efficiently to prepare to deal with all kinds of natural disasters, including hurricanes, volcanoes, tsunamis, earchquakes, meteors, asteroids, comets, plagues, etc. is a large task, but within the capacity of modern statistical methods and computational power. It would cost probably a few billion dollars, but it would likely save a hundred times that.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!