I think it is important to realise that Prof Singer is not advocating eugenics, nor cost efficiency, nor quality of life. These are all human-oriented values. By this, I mean they assume that a human metric is what counts.
There are too many of us, we consume too much, we pollute (think about the electricity your computer is sucking, the plastics and rare metals inside of it), we prolong lives past a time where the effort to maintain life is fair. Note that I'm not talking cost-effective. I'm talking resource equity- not just for people but for the environment we rely on. Assuming that Singers argument is based on human metrics is inappropriate- I think he is looking at the bigger picture: That we expend an inordinate amount of resources on specific, rather than broad based solutions.
For example how can our western society justify keeping Kerry Packer alive after a well deserved (oops) heart attack at inordinate cost when other people regularly starve to death? Similarly, with the extremely disabled, the personal tragedy is undeniable, but so are all of the unlamented deaths in the 'third world'. Anyone aware of the level of HIV infection in Africa?
I've worked with disabled people. Most have some chance at making their lives personally rewarding. I remember one girl, same age as me, who had had a profound siezure at two. She had no motor skills, was constantly convulsing, had to be fed throug a hole cut in her stomach, had to be strapped to her wheelchair or she would literally tear muscles from the strength of her convulsions and had very little brain tissue left after 20 odd tears of this. Quality of life... you decide. When she died of associated complications, her mother was devastated, but so relieved. I don't think we are talking downs syndrome here, folks.
Anyway, I've rambled too much. Don't mistake Cerebal Palsy or the like as the sorts of disabilities we're talking about. And don't forget how much it takes to preserve a life when so many others suffer because we have the luxury of living in such an affluent society.....
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is important to realise that Prof Singer is not advocating eugenics, nor cost efficiency, nor quality of life. These are all human-oriented values. By this, I mean they assume that a human metric is what counts.
There are too many of us, we consume too much, we pollute (think about the electricity your computer is sucking, the plastics and rare metals inside of it), we prolong lives past a time where the effort to maintain life is fair. Note that I'm not talking cost-effective. I'm talking resource equity- not just for people but for the environment we rely on. Assuming that Singers argument is based on human metrics is inappropriate- I think he is looking at the bigger picture: That we expend an inordinate amount of resources on specific, rather than broad based solutions.
For example how can our western society justify keeping Kerry Packer alive after a well deserved (oops) heart attack at inordinate cost when other people regularly starve to death? Similarly, with the extremely disabled, the personal tragedy is undeniable, but so are all of the unlamented deaths in the 'third world'. Anyone aware of the level of HIV infection in Africa?
I've worked with disabled people. Most have some chance at making their lives personally rewarding. I remember one girl, same age as me, who had had a profound siezure at two. She had no motor skills, was constantly convulsing, had to be fed throug a hole cut in her stomach, had to be strapped to her wheelchair or she would literally tear muscles from the strength of her convulsions and had very little brain tissue left after 20 odd tears of this. Quality of life... you decide. When she died of associated complications, her mother was devastated, but so relieved. I don't think we are talking downs syndrome here, folks.
Anyway, I've rambled too much. Don't mistake Cerebal Palsy or the like as the sorts of disabilities we're talking about. And don't forget how much it takes to preserve a life when so many others suffer because we have the luxury of living in such an affluent society.....