Does the ethical dilemma facing wildlife journalists extend to human suffering?

Question

The wonderful new series Life on Earth had a small sequence last week where a baby penguin had fallen down a hole in the ice. After much deliberation, one of the crew "recued" it and it was returned to its mother. Without human intervention it would have died.

It was explained that they had in fact broken an unwritten rule in wildlife journalism by intervening in nature, where the survival of the fittest ensures healthy species.

Now the controversial question - why doesn't that rule extend ACROSS nature? Why do we Western countries spend vast amounts of our wealth on trying to solve other of nature's problems that affect humans in the developing world?

By intervening, are we actually diluting the strength of Africans and Asians by allowing all to survive rather than the fittest?

I tend towards the view that we are creating a dependence culture in many countries, where the population would have to find their own solutions without us.

Answer 1

I agree and disagree with you ;-)

I disagree because I don't believe in survival of the fittest, but rather in mercy and compassion towards God's creatures. I think it was definitely appropriate to help the baby penguin, and it is always appropriate to personally and voluntarily help other people who are in need.

But I am against foreign aid for many reasons. Compassion work is important and necessary, but should not come from the State, most importantly because 1) aid from government to government is inefficient and tends not to go towards practical help for the poor but rather to enrich the often corrupt leaders and 2) taxation for foreign aid is unconstitutional.

Economist PT Bauer spent much of his career writing about how foreign aid hurts poor people, and that there are better ways to help people out of poverty, one of which is to challenge mindsets that encourage poverty. So, we should be compassionate and merciful through individual and joint voluntary group efforts, but leave the State out of it.

Answer 2

Criminal Punishment, specifically, the Death Penalty. We have serious crime, and once a person is an adult, you are held to the standards of society. But not all of those adults have been taught those standards. So punishment is not really punishment for the purpose of correcting wrong behavior or ideas. And the death penalty is the most agregious horror we as a society mete out to those who commit murder. Did you know that the Death Penalty does not actually prevent murder? Studies done on those who are on Death Row have clearly established that the murderers knew at the time of their crimes that the Death Penalty existed. However, they did not believe they would get caught. That is because their families did not properly train them that we must obey the law. So when they committed their murders, they had little experience with understanding that their will be harsh punishment. There is a tremendous amount of work we must do to turn this ugly Death Penalty to death itself. We have also put to death many people who were later established as Innoscent. Is is not bad enough we kill those who have killed, but that we imprison and kill those who have NOT killed? We must discuss this serious issue.