::::::::
Professor Peter Singer thinks we're all morally stained, yes indeed. A review of his new book in the NY Times reports, "It's a volume that suggests, given that 18 million people are dying unnecessarily each year in developing countries, Google Inc. said Tuesday that employees traded in 93 percent of their underwater stock options for new ones at a lower price, under a program aimed at keeping workers motivated.that there is a "-moral stain on a world as rich as this one.' ... Helping the world's poor will bring "-meaning and purpose' to our lives.'"
To bring moral purpose to his life, Princeton Professor Singer gives away "25%" (probably pre-tax on a solid six-figure income, and I hope his new book does well too). An unqualified, good for him, I say! Refusing to mitigate human suffering is unquestionably immoral.
But he could do far more good by contributing to efforts at population control. When a banana-bellied child holds up his empty bowl, you can't say, "Sorry, kid, but you should not have been born. Tough luck."
At least I couldn't.
But there's the enormous social/moral dilemma: once a human comes into being, he or she exerts a powerful moral claim on our care and concern, regardless of how many other humans are competing for our compassion.
Nevertheless, as we run out of resources, the numberless poor feel it first; and it would help a lot if they weren't so damn numberless.
I know it sounds cruel; but poverty and starvation are only symptoms; the disease itself is overpopulation. In the long run, we can do far more good by directing our money, our time, and our moral suasion toward reducing the number of those heartbreaking children holding up empty bowls.
