compasion vs logic

Compassion vs Logic

Forest fires, landslides, monsoons, earthquakes, droughts, famines, tornados, epidemics, pandemic, and wars all have one thing in common... death and suffering. The death and suffering usually happens to innocent humans. So often we see pictures and videos of theses victims on the news, often asking even pleading for help. These same pictures and videos pull at are our heart. Our hearts go out to the victims of this suffering. We hear that no human should have to endure such suffering, so we want to help. This help is often in the form of food, water, medical treatment or money. What does this accomplish? On the surface it seems obvious what they accomplish.

The earth is full of resources but in reality it is a closed system. Earth can only support so much life whether it is plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, or humans. The more resources a living thing requires the smaller the size of the population that can be supported indefinitely. This concept is known as a carrying capacity in other words it is the number of specific organisms that a given environment can sustain. When it comes to carrying capacity humans are no different, the earth can only support so many.
In regards to wildlife the limiting factor (the part of the environment limits the size of the population) is usually one of two things, food and space. If the carrying capacity is exceeded starvation and disease runs rampant. The mortality caused reduces the population back to or below the carrying capacity. This shows us that natural disasters, diseases, and wars can be a way to help the problem of over population.

God has given humans the ability to think, solve problems, and create. The development of agriculture and the ability to transport resources globally has increased the earth’s carrying capacity for humans but there is still one. According to many we have already exceeded it. That is debatable. I do know this. When water is given to an area plagued with drought the water giving does reduce the suffering for the time being but increases it in the long run. People that would have died survive and the population increases instead of decreasing. Then a famine comes and we give them food and again the population increases when it should decrease. The next time one of these events strikes it might not be as massive as the previous one but will cause more people to suffer.

To quote Spock “The needs of the many out way the needs of the few” and someone else once said “give someone a fish and feed them for a day, teach someone to fish and feed them for life.” However there are only so many fish!

So the question become is this. Is it more humane to ease the present suffering only to increase suffering for future generations or let a relatively small number of humans suffer so a larger number of humans in the future so not suffer as much?