Sophia was wrong, and killed herself, her baby, George, and Jimmy. She was guilty of human hubris. We cannot make her mistake.
In evolutionary biology, it's very difficult to deal with humans. So difficult, in fact, that most of time time, humans are simply not included in the equation. The classic phrase is that "humans are no longer subject to natural selection". We sometimes refer to humanity as a "welfare society". Although that has many definitions, I define a welfare society as a group of individuals who are no longer subjected to the pressure of natural selection.
In class, it was correctly identified that the development of agriculture marked humanity's passage into a welfare society. Surplus resources through agriculture allows a reallocation of priorities. The weak and sickly are allowed to live. The mind can be set towards loftier goals than food, water, and shelter. The human moral system is allowed to take hold in a significant manner; the mother with a sick child can focus on nursing her young back to health, instead of chasing herds of game.
But human welfare society is just that: human. It is unique to us. Some may argue for its recognition as a natural state, apart from nature, but I disagree with those assertions, despite my definition. Although separated from natural selection, a welfare state has its origins in a natural, ecological order. But it is this very reason why we cannot extend this welfare state beyond humans. It is rare chance that we do successfully, and when it is accomplished, it is done with species who through other means are far more adapted to such a communal lifestyle than others. Rakhat, and the Runa and Jana'ata who live on Rakhat, are not prime domestic species. We cannot extend our welfare society to them.
What happened on Rakhat is what happens all the time on Earth: humans attempt to change a system on their own biases. The gardens introduced by the humans were problematic, but could be taken care of. Within the context of Rakhat ecology, the Runa could be culled, and the gardens could be destroyed. Humans could of survived the conflict. Sofia took the human welfare society where it should not go, and tipped the delicate ecological balance of the planet too far. What Sofia did was fundamentally wrong.
The moral question Russell grapples with in The Sparrow is humanity's capability of restraining itself in the face of interspecific relationships. Yes, humanity could "fix" the Rakhat system; humanity could prevent the culling of Runa and remove the Jana'ata from power. But we already know the consequences of tampering with systems that evolved naturally; we deal with these consequences everyday on Earth. There are too many variables, too much to attempt to control. Tampering removes balance, and ends with destruction. The Jana'ata killed the Runa infants, but Sophia killed the the Runa adults fighting back. Sophia killed George and her husband through her own ignorance. It was a terrible price to pay to learn that it is impossible to include different sentient species in a human welfare society.
I just want to quick make an addendum to my post. I deal a lot with interspecific moral questions when faced with applying a welfare society to the "other". In this context, I concluded that it was fundamentally wrong, because it upsets a delicate ecological balance.
ReplyDeleteI want to contract that with an intraspecific example. In class, PTJ related this to the question of female genital mutilation. This, in my mind, is fundamentally different than the question of interfering with the Runa/Jana'ata, but it doesn't make it any easier.
I would argue for the affirmative of universal human rights. I believe the human moral system is either a evolutionary advantage, or an evolutionary accident. Either way, it was developed before individual cultural development, indicating a universalism to the human moral system. Therefore, the enforcement of human rights, according to the human moral system, can also be applied universally.
I think that this post really puts a finger on something that I've been trying to figure out for some time.
ReplyDeleteHowever, what about the fact that many nations do not accept what we define as universal human rights? What about the name itself? Is there some stripped-bare code of sentient conduct that we should hold all aliens to?
Well, I think in the end, your question about aliens is what I'm trying to answer. In an evolutionary context, there is no stripped-bare code of sentient conduct, because every action they take will be in context of their own experiences.
ReplyDeleteThe question about humans, and human rights, is way more nuanced. I really don't have an answer for you on that - it's hard to understand in the biologist frame-work I put everything in. I'm working on it though!