Ethical Dilemma: Man Vs. Earth

One of the biggest and controversial question to be asked is about the conflict between overpopulation versus overconsumption (the limitation of supply resources) & environmental challenges. Would you rather get rid of half of humanity to save the human future generation form extinct due to starvation, lack of resources and habitability of the planet? This is an ethical question and hard to respond to. Either way, it will be hard to apply the best method. 

This kind of question is causing an ethical dilemma! It makes you think through the consequences of the action, and have in consideration whether its morally accepted if applied. 

Dan Brown's book "Inferno" was asking the same question. The villain (Or you may say the good character" in this story is a mad scientist, who wants to spread "Infect" a virus to kill as many people as this infection would. So that the earth will be saved, and its resources will be enough to those who recovered from the infection. The book itself is remarkable and catches the history of the places combined with real-life facts and knowledge. It provides the information to you in a very simple and enjoyable to read way. 

Through History, the earth had 5 major mass extinctions. Many Natural disasters. The earth stood still and recovered, and the human race was recovering as well. However, these natural disasters were made obviously by nature, we can say it is a god's plan. 

However, when it comes from a human act. Wars like: World War I & II, Mangoul conquests, French Civil war, and many more through history. Animal Viruses Transmitted to Humans like Plaque and Spanish Flu for example. Even the most recent Corona Virus (Covid-19). Modern Technology and it is effects on nature. How we can determine if these are good to have for a better future to the next generations and the planet as well. 

© Getty Images; Photo illustration: Javier Zarracina/Vox

Cities like London and New York. They both had a great fire in separate times. Tokyo and Berlin were both destroyed entirely during World War II. All these cities had their chance and recover to become more powerful and stronger due to these incidents. They had the technology, population, and ego reached the highest peak. Millions of people were wiped out during these events. If these events didn't happen, what would be like for those cities? Do you think it will be a better place? Or it was worth losing all those lives? For the sake of Humanity and the planet.

The global economic system will have a recession. If the countries didn't apply a temporary total shutdown and curfew to contain the virus, then they will increase the number of infected people, and death toll as well. But it will save the economy. If we reverse the formula, we will save people but will have some countries fall down due to economic crises, middle and lower classes people will suffer, and normalizing things may need time to recover. So, the question: Is it ethical to sacrifice part of your population to save the rest? Or Should all suffer the consequences and country instability?

Most recent reports and images about covid-19 and Air pollution show clearly how the earth is recovering from climate change made by humans. Climate change issues are a global problem that has not been actively addressed and taken seriously by humans. Yet, it is a serious problem that may impact the lives of all living species in the near future. This positive change is temporary and causes by having the human activities reduced to its minimum capabilities, especially in places with most affected with the virus. Do you feel happy to hear such news? having in mind many people lost their lives, jobs and way of a decent living.

It is very hard to answer this question? As both have the right and wrong answer. I believe it is not the right question to ask. I believe that human nature by itself is the problem to humanity and earth! 

Narcissism, Polarization, and inequity are the big issues that need to be resolved. Narcissism with all technology and development being made, expansion of cities, Plastic waste or even sex and birth of a new child without taking any consideration or actions to study their effects on the environment and the public interest. Polarization in having some countries control others by means of war, money or even influence, without having in consideration to the people's lives and land. Inequity in jobs, resources used, money and even social equity. The list of human contributions and their negative consequences are many. 

The earth has all the resources needed if used wisely. Humans need to stand together through crises. Legalize laws to protect the environment, Birth control, and social equity. Put these in action.  

It would be okay to have nature do her job to balance the population with the resources, but I would not accept human interference to make the problem bigger than it should be. Reaching the point to ask such a controversial question.