versus

continuing from where the last post left off, here we go. the issues of the spider-butterfly concept:

in the position of the two boys, what do you do? do you save the butterfly from the spider, or do you let nature take its course?

now i know there are grey areas (i don't expect people to line up on one side and never take a position which the other side would) and there's no concrete right or wrong answer (well, maybe some wrong ones) to how to deal with every single imaginable situation life could throw at us, but it's just food for thought and what's been sustaining my hyperactive mind lately. bear with me.

say you choose to save the butterfly, claiming it's your responsibility, granted by God, to have dominion over the animals and see to what's ultimately best for the world you all share and to distribute the best life-propagating strategies. okay. so, how do you know/trust saving that butterfly will do that. yes, it has immediate effects, often seen as good - a life is saved. however, you're taking food from another. and it happened naturally, so wouldn't it be seen as right or meant to be? perhaps you say you were put there to witness the happenings as so you might prevent the atrocity. how do you know it wasn't part of some higher plan for you to appreciate life all the more, witnessing its lack/dissipating in the body of something just as alive as yourself?
now i know these are creatures in nature, and many might say if it deals with them, let them do their thing; it's part of the cycle of life and whatnot. but, consider the ripple effect. just like that movie The Butterfly Effect. everything you do affects the outcome of the future; every action dictating a thousand possible futures, only one of which will be enacted. also, think about it on the human scale. in the human world, the butterfly saver would be the one who condones modern medicine to thrwart the natural killers (viruses, bacteria, and the like). you save lives by whatever means, even if it means killing (killing the viruses and such). think even bigger. does that also mean you choose to give all of your own organs to save tons more lives? it has the biggest immediate payoff. think about it. you donate all your organs to patients in desparate need of organ donors. this not only saves [number equal to the number of organs you donate] lives at the expense of your one death, you save a near infinite number more lives by knocking those first patients off the "need organ" list, so any other organs donated by someone else go to those who would've been 2nd, 3rd, or so on. immediate payoff and saving of countless lives just by your own death. one death = tons of living. do you condone that, butterfly saviors? where does it end? if you follow that, then we all live just to die for each other. where's the cutoff? think about that movie Wanted. you kill one assassin, you save tons of lives. that spider may die, but think of all the butterflies who'll live. so, do you follow that? you might say "you don't have to kill them. just dismantle/disable/lock up the assassins." costs more to have all these jails. takes away from helping people in other ways if the governments have all these jails popping up to run and take care of these killers. money from trials and a whole lot more, too. crazy stuff. we'd either have infringement of civil liberties (think more guantanamo bay areas) or no money to do anything but build jails, take care of those in them, and hold trials. all because there's no limit on the extremes to which people will go to save these butterflies. newborns die all the time. stillbirths are real. how do you know it's not part of a higher agenda for someone to die during a mugging so they can find peace, and there's one less person eating up resources. overpopulation's a problem anyway. aren't murderers helping to balance things out? i know the last few statements seem a bit extreme, but so do the methods of trying to save all those not directly killing. something to think about.



now, for the other side. you watch. you let the spider kill the butterfly. you don't interact with nature. you let it run it's course, and don't fight the rhythm of the music. all well and good. but, what about when your neighbor's attacked by a bear? sure, he probably did something to antagonize it, but that's his business. the bear's protecting its own. do you watch? he calls your name, desperate to escape the fatality of the mauling. nah. it's nature. two creatures interacting. cycle of life. by dying, he's gonna feed a ton of organisms, fertilize the soil, and serve a higher purpose than you could grasp. you can't tell how something's going to affect the future. you have moments to react. you let it happen, you'll never know the alternate reality borne of the other decision, but you have to live with your choice. that guy's dead. think more personally. your most beloved contracts ulcerative colitis (first disease to pop into my head, heh). now, without medication or surgery, he or she will most certainly die, and the procession will be part of the most uncomfortable, most horrendous experiences faced by this person. now, following the trend of not interfering with nature, you can't have a surgery or give the person the meds to control things. nah. UC develops almost randomly. it just occurs in nature. not hereditary. it just happens. higher order plan? maybe so. so you have to content yourself with accepting it's fate and let your beloved die a horrible, yet easily avoidable death. now ain't that some [expletive deleted]?



yeah, just the rantings of a madboy. i know every person's going to sway from side to side, depending on the situation. but the initial concept made me think about that. heck, i don't even know what i'd do in half of those situations. when i get sick, i'm generally stubborn and leave it up to my body's natural defenses to take care of me, even if it means prolonged suffering. i'm just thickheaded when it comes to that. yet, if i see anyone about whom i care, even a complete stranger, in a life-threatening situation, i'm going to act to prevent the loss of a life if i can. now, i'll try to go for the least painful (as far as my eyes and supposition will allow me to see) choice. i'll try to save a life without killing another. i wouldn't assassinate 1 guy to save a ton. but i'd do whatever i could to incapacitate that guy. i consider myself somewhat of a pascifist. or maybe i just resort to force only when no other option proves effective or reasonable. but i don't think i could kill anyone. i take that back. in blind rage, who knows? come at a loved one with intention to kill, i'll intervene. i hope i could manage it without the loss of life, but if it appears i can't, i believe i have what it takes to end a life. i just hope i could find an alternative method if the time ever arises. so yeah, even i, the proposer of all these questions and conflicts, am on the fence. just throwing stuff out there. it was on my mind and i just wanted to get it out there.

i'm going to go work on my story some more, or possibly draw. i just need to do something a little lighter. the music to which i'm listening is too light for me to be thinking so dark and heavily. talk amongst yourselves.
take care!