Ethical dilemma: What makes life worth living? - Douglas MacLean
On your planet, life depends
entirely on Nuronium.
Your species is almost otherwise
identical to humans,
except you require Nuronium
in the atmosphere for normal cognition.
Without it, people lose their capacity
to imagine and think reflectively.
Over time, they even lose their ability
to make and retain long-term memories.
While this is certainly
a delicate situation,
this essential element also provides
an infinite source of clean energy,
which has allowed your people
to thrive for millennia.
But leading scientists
have discovered terrible news.
Somehow the entire source of Nuronium
has been irreversibly compromised.
It now emits a pollutant that lowers
fertility in your species,
and if your planet continues
relying on this resource,
your people will go extinct
within 100 years.
However, in an incredible stroke of luck,
your scientists have identified a passing
comet from which they can mine
an alternate energy source
called Polixate.
Polixate won’t cause infertility
and would provide the same
renewable energy as Nuronium.
But it won’t sustain cognition
in quite the same way.
With Polixate in the atmosphere
instead of Nuronium,
people would lose their creativity,
their long-term memories,
and eventually,
your entire culture would disappear.
The Polixate comet will only remain
in orbit for a few days,
and after that it won't
return for centuries.
So your society's administrative
council must decide immediately
whether to keep using Nuronium or mount
an expedition to harvest the Polixate.
Right now, the board is split—
waiting for your tiebreaking vote.
Dr. Taylof’s contingent argues that your
people must continue using Nuronium.
They believe that your species’ culture—
centuries of literature, music, and art,
as well as your achievements
in agriculture, medicine, and technology—
is what makes life worth living.
Without the memories of your
people’s history
or the ability to dream up new inventions,
the people on your planet would
essentially be reduced to mindless drones.
Their basic needs for survival
and reproduction would be met,
but Dr. Taylof believes the lives
of those future generations
would be meaningless without memories,
imagination, and culture.
And since Dr. Taylof’s group doesn’t
believe that future generations
have any inherent right to be brought
into existence,
if it’s not possible for them to add
to the civilization they’ve inherited,
there's no point in trying
to preserve them.
Besides, no living beings are harmed
by continuing to rely on Nuronium—
your species should simply accept
their fate and go extinct with dignity.
Dr. Kahan and their colleagues
strongly disagree.
They admit that switching to Polixate
would decrease
your people’s quality of life.
But with their basic needs met,
they could still experience a kind
of happiness observed
in other, arguably less complex lifeforms.
And even if there's no chance of your
people redeveloping creativity,
what's most important for Dr. Kahan is
that we would be preserving life.
Dr. Kahan’s faction believes
the continuation of life alone
is incomparably valuable.
They also believe that, on average,
every member of your species contributes,
in small but constant ways,
to the betterment of your people.
So by choosing to ensure
your people’s existence,
you would ultimately be improving
the total happiness of your species.
But Dr. Taylof rejects the idea
that maximizing happiness
is the ultimate goal of living.
They believe that a valuable life
consists not only of happiness
but also meaningfulness.
And that acting as links
in the chain of tradition
and preserving cultural artifacts
are some of the most fundamental sources
of meaning a species can have.
Merely continuing to exist,
in lives like those of contented pets,
would not be valuable.
Meanwhile, the advocates for Polixate
believe there’s something
fundamentally unethical
about choosing extinction.
Dr. Kahan argues there’s no moral
difference between what we do
and what we allow to happen
when we could have acted differently.
So while it would be tragic if your people
ceased to exist due to chance,
to knowingly make a decision
that results in extinction
is tantamount to mass murder.
Both sides have much more to say,
but the council needs your vote now.
So what shall it be: Nuronium for a while,
or Polixate forever?
