Preserving the human race by being selfish
Someone I know recently complained to me that a friend of hers was selfish. Without thinking much about it, I made a passing comment that everyone is selfish in their own way. She then somewhat proudly and indignantly said that she was not selfish. I didn’t respond to that, because my immediate rating of her “level” of selfishness was about equal to the person she was complaining about, based on my experience with both of these people.
But the word “selfish” has been demonized to mean something bad, which I am not entirely sure it really is bad at all. I think that being selfish is, in many ways, a survival trait.
Going back to our cavemen days, when in need of food, one needs to hoard food and, yes, even watch those of your own clan die away because it’s about the survival of the fittest. Fast forward to today’s time, you can say that in the United States, most of us have transcended those days of merely surviving (think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) to self actualization in the pursuit of morality. But when we have reached this stage, does this mean that the very skills and traits we have learned to get us there should be abandoned? It doesn’t sound like a good idea…it’s like building a skyscraper then deciding to remove the foundation from beneath it.
We’ll tread into controversial arena here…if we as a human race decided to spend much of our resources helping the weak because it is morally our obligation (e.g. idealistic notions that one should not die because of lack of finances to pay for healthcare or one should not die just because they have an currently incurable disease), it is viewed as being unselfish. Those who are financially strong, through taxes or donations, help to subsidize those who can’t afford healthcare or help pay for scientific research to discover the cure to the disease. However, these activities arguably help the “weak” in the human species rather than help forward and boost the strong.
From a Darwinian standpoint, we would be devolving as a species because we are not selfish enough to leave the weak behind. Yes, the Darwinian approach sounds terribly harsh, even inhuman. Nonetheless, isn’t this how mankind has evolved to become the intellectual and accomplished species that we are today? Is “doing the right and moral thing” today sacrificing our very existence for tomorrow?
Perhaps being selfish is not the worst thing in the world. Especially if that may mean keeping intact the building blocks that keep the human species alive. Of course, who’s to say that this dooms day scenario is not blown out of proportion?
But then again, one should ask, why in the first place are some people unable to afford healthcare? Some people, perhaps they were smart and able, but did not study hard, apply themselves, or work hard enough to earn that money. For others, it is purely bad luck – they are born into poor health (e.g. freak mutation of the genes) which in turn drains even a family of strong financial means into financial ruins. It is natural for most to empathize with the latter scenario and be mad, even loathing, of those who due to the own doing or inaction have caused the rest of society to bear their burden. However, in the world of medical science and ethics, it is unrealistic to make patient treatment decisions based on how deserving they are – for example, if a comatosed John Doe was found on the street and brought to the ER, who will tell his side of the story to lobby for treatment?
What if the terribly ill person is another Stephen Hawking? Someone who is not a healthy person but has an incredible mind? We may never know or allow a person’s potential to be maximized if the person who is ill is just a young child. As a human race, we would have lost a person who could potentially advance mankind in a dramatic way if we did not try to save this person.
In addition, sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts. If a person were to survive, s/he may meet someone else and enable that person to discover something incredible for all mankind. Even if we can calculate the odds of such things happening, are we willing to play Russian roulette with the human race with each incoming patient?
Hence, one of the arguments to try to save everyone, regardless of their background, is that it is insurance that there will be a number of people saved who would make a big difference for all of us. This is not an argument about being unselfish, but is in fact a motivation stemmed from being selfish – we are enabling every possibility of brilliance in mankind to have a shot at blossoming to fruition for the greater good for all.
But the word “selfish” has been demonized to mean something bad, which I am not entirely sure it really is bad at all. I think that being selfish is, in many ways, a survival trait.
Going back to our cavemen days, when in need of food, one needs to hoard food and, yes, even watch those of your own clan die away because it’s about the survival of the fittest. Fast forward to today’s time, you can say that in the United States, most of us have transcended those days of merely surviving (think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs) to self actualization in the pursuit of morality. But when we have reached this stage, does this mean that the very skills and traits we have learned to get us there should be abandoned? It doesn’t sound like a good idea…it’s like building a skyscraper then deciding to remove the foundation from beneath it.
We’ll tread into controversial arena here…if we as a human race decided to spend much of our resources helping the weak because it is morally our obligation (e.g. idealistic notions that one should not die because of lack of finances to pay for healthcare or one should not die just because they have an currently incurable disease), it is viewed as being unselfish. Those who are financially strong, through taxes or donations, help to subsidize those who can’t afford healthcare or help pay for scientific research to discover the cure to the disease. However, these activities arguably help the “weak” in the human species rather than help forward and boost the strong.
From a Darwinian standpoint, we would be devolving as a species because we are not selfish enough to leave the weak behind. Yes, the Darwinian approach sounds terribly harsh, even inhuman. Nonetheless, isn’t this how mankind has evolved to become the intellectual and accomplished species that we are today? Is “doing the right and moral thing” today sacrificing our very existence for tomorrow?
Perhaps being selfish is not the worst thing in the world. Especially if that may mean keeping intact the building blocks that keep the human species alive. Of course, who’s to say that this dooms day scenario is not blown out of proportion?
But then again, one should ask, why in the first place are some people unable to afford healthcare? Some people, perhaps they were smart and able, but did not study hard, apply themselves, or work hard enough to earn that money. For others, it is purely bad luck – they are born into poor health (e.g. freak mutation of the genes) which in turn drains even a family of strong financial means into financial ruins. It is natural for most to empathize with the latter scenario and be mad, even loathing, of those who due to the own doing or inaction have caused the rest of society to bear their burden. However, in the world of medical science and ethics, it is unrealistic to make patient treatment decisions based on how deserving they are – for example, if a comatosed John Doe was found on the street and brought to the ER, who will tell his side of the story to lobby for treatment?
What if the terribly ill person is another Stephen Hawking? Someone who is not a healthy person but has an incredible mind? We may never know or allow a person’s potential to be maximized if the person who is ill is just a young child. As a human race, we would have lost a person who could potentially advance mankind in a dramatic way if we did not try to save this person.
In addition, sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts. If a person were to survive, s/he may meet someone else and enable that person to discover something incredible for all mankind. Even if we can calculate the odds of such things happening, are we willing to play Russian roulette with the human race with each incoming patient?
Hence, one of the arguments to try to save everyone, regardless of their background, is that it is insurance that there will be a number of people saved who would make a big difference for all of us. This is not an argument about being unselfish, but is in fact a motivation stemmed from being selfish – we are enabling every possibility of brilliance in mankind to have a shot at blossoming to fruition for the greater good for all.
Comments