Euthanasia and ethics in practice...

Today I had a really interesting experience. It started with coming home from work and feeling mentally exhausted, so I thought I'd try to get in some light meditation just to calm down. I didn't really want to do it on my back porch like I usually do because it was rather noisy around my neighborhood this time of day, so I got on my bike and went to my favorite secluded pond in the back woods a little bit. That's where things got a little weird.

I walked around the shoreline of this pond (almost big enough to be a lake) just to get some mud between my toes and relax my heart rate a little bit after the bike ride there. In the water I noticed one unusually huge largemouth bass floating on the surface. It looked a little torn up and wasn't moving, so I just assumed it was dead. No big deal. Fish die in lakes all the time. Granted, this was a huge fish (about two feet long, which is a ginormous bass), but a fairly regular occurance. Just when I was about to get into my meditation position, the fish flopped. Weird....

I watched for a few minutes as this bass sporadically flopped in the water, obviously suffering from some massive injury and getting ready to die. It really bothered me. Should I just watch this fish suffer? Should I kill it and put it out of its misery? If I were the fish, what would I want done to me? I pondered for about ten minutes, pacing the shoreline. Eventually, I came to a conclusion. I'm not sure whether it was right or not, but I made a decision.

I waded into the water and grabbed this giant fish. I stared it in the eyes for a little bit and then set it on the dock to die. I couldn't gather the courage to crush it and kill it myself, but I figured I'd speed up the process and end its suffering. The way I saw it, it was an act of compassion to help kill this fish. It was going to die either way. One way it was slow and terrible, the other it was over in a couple of minutes.

After discussion with Lindsey, I realized something that I think is important. While I was pacing and thinking about what to do, I wanted to make sure that I whatever I did (or didn't do, as would be the case had I left the fish to its own misery), I had thought it out. I didn't want to leave the fish alone just because I didn't know what to do. I made a decision on purpose, which I think is part of the intrigue for me. For me, not making a decision at all is just as bad as making the wrong decision, but I could very well be wrong. I'm not enlightened. Thoughts?

I don't know. I just thought I'd share it with you guys and maybe open up some interesting discussion and hear some other points of view on a matter like this. What do you all think? Is it okay to aid in the death of something suffering or am I going to be a largemouth bass for the next fifty lifetimes?

My struggle with Ishmael...

I'm currently reading what one of my friends defines as a "mind fuck." They're really kind of pleasant and enjoyable when you're in it, but you sometimes have regrets when it's over and you have time to think about it. For me, that book is Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

Published in 1992, this is a book about why our society is essentially doomed in its current state. I have no problem swallowing that fact. I see it all around me. Some of the accounts that Ishmael, a talking gorilla, gives for this demise are rather interesting and sometimes harder for me to swallow than the original premise that we've screwed everything up and are going to have to work very hard to change the world if we'd like to survive. Chapter eight is an excellent example of one of the more difficult aspects of the book.

Let's talk about population growth. In the wild, when food supply increases, the population that feeds on that supply increases along with that supply. Eventually the food supply becomes exhausted and shrinks, causing famine in the population that depends on it. The population then shrinks in response. That's just the way nature works.

Humans are somewhat different, according to Ishmael, since we see ourselves as above the laws of nature. We see the earth as given to us by God and we our its kings. In order to fully reign, we must conquer. Thus, the world is our subject and we can do what we please. We are the final end, not a means to anything else. It's liberating in terms of what we are allowed to do, but eventually this paradigm of thinking will probably end up destroying us. One of the examples of why is this:

Since mankind settled and became agricultural some three thousand years ago, our population has been allowed to increase. If we have more people and outgrow our food supply, however, we don't have to get hungry. We just conquer more of the earth and make up for the famine. This is a problem because, as humans, we tend to eliminate anything that stands in our way. Nature loses in our quest for sustaining our ever-growing population. Without diversity of species, the earth is a much more fragile place. If something should occur, diversity ensures the ultimate survival of life. We're causing extinction and thus endangering our own species. It's a problem.

I'm sure I did a terrible job of explaining the situation there, but hang with me. There is a philosophical point to come. Plus, maybe my vague explanation will encourage you to read the book yourself!

It seems that there should be a solution, and there very well may be later in the book, but I can't see it. Logically, we need to find some way to limit our population or face demise according to this paradigm. Do we let the starving people starve? Do we lessen our food production in hopes of limiting human life and ultimately saving the earth? I can't see that happening. As a humanitarian, I see an inherent need for protection of human life. I could give you my proof for why, but I'll spare you. Needless to say, I don't think we can just let people die. I also don't think we can continue on our current path. I'm just stuck for now. This is why I'm into ethics and philosophy. It's practical applications may ultimately come in handy in saving the world.