An Utterly False Comparison

There have been scientists who compared the situation on a planet to the one on a (space) ship. On very first sight, this comparison holds some water, yet on closer scrutiny, the comparison is false, the conclusions for human life on our planet therefore are false too. On a ship, a space ship, if one likes, there is a captain (and crew) and there are passengers. The captain is an expert in sailing the ship, setting the course and what not. Then, the ship is owned, not by the passengers, but by some syndicate, or group of owners or else. Not so with Earth! Earth, is the possession of every living thing on its surface, that is, crew and passenger alike. And they are equally ignorant of the working of the ship. True, the plants and the animals can not (verbally) claim their rights, yet, they have rights (Hutchinson Harris writes about animals that recognise rights in others, but this is anthropomorphism). But it is man who by means of his extra degree of freedom in ideation (53), is capable to judge, therefore it is only his duty to see that all rights are divided and distributed, share and share alike. A more appropriate comparison of a planetary population would be that of a huge space-ship, a billionfold in complexity compared with anything we know of, with no captain or crew, with no other owners than this population itself, that is set aboard all of a sudden. This ship has food, oxygen and other commodities aboard, yet would not be able to change its course, has no engines. On this ship, the passengers would first be bewildered by all the things that are to be found, all the dangers too, that would be incorporated by inexpert fiddling with its apparatus. What would such population of passengers do? They would first of all, keep their numbers down, then, try to become familiar with the instruments, and, would form a sort of captaincy that would decide about the oxygen and food production/distribution, in short, the well-being of all passengers. Such a captaincy, logically, would want to be advised by those who have a little knowledge about the workings of the instruments. Soon, they would deduct that Summum Bonum (31.4) and democracy does not work. The majority might think to feel happier with ozone than with oxygen 2. Thus, no captaincy as instrument of democrazy! The only fair method for such a captaincy would be the appointment by lot. It is this captaincy that all thinkers like B. Russell (who could produce such nonsense about ideation and knowledge), A. Huxley, and especially H.G. Wells, have taken as the most important topic for their studies in sociology. A mondial sociology that is, one that was propagated by the very Socrates, although the latter left no self-written notes (54). We are clearly NOT passengers on a luxury liner, on a holliday cruise, with a concerned and expert captain and crew, with cooks, stewards, pursers, maids and with all other slaves that would spoil us. Instead, we are crammed in a lifeboat with nobody in authority, (I mean in BOAT authority, not own-pocket authority), with little food and water, with many of the fellow survivors stark mad, constantly in the most immediate danger of foundering and with the severest utter heavy weather in store. The only thing then, and open to us all, is ... get organised, stop producing more survivors for some generations, refrain from persuading suicides to stay on, and kick those who think survival depends on mermaids and are constantly praying and sacrificing to them, into co-operation, kick them into co-operation instead of letting them sabotage the workings of the ship (boat). That too, is a rough comparison which may hold some water.

We want men who know, not men who need to be told. Howard, Spring in Fame.