In the novel, a new plant virus arises, one which destroys all grasses (including such things as rice and wheat). It starts off in China, and famine on a massive scale soon occurs there. When the virus spreads to England, the government decides to destroy the major cities with nuclear weapons in order to prevent the countryside from being destroyed by huge numbers of starving refugees from the cities. The main characters get wind of this in advance, shoot their way out of London, and head for a farm owned by the brother of one of them (the brother is growing potatoes, which are unaffected by the virus).

Like many apocalyptic novels, this one features vicious looters who will do anything to survive. Unlike most such novels, the vicious looters are the main characters. The reader is forced to sympathize with them, even as they do such things as kill the inhabitants of a farmhouse to get supplies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
Perhaps we should start thinking about these things now, since given the way the world is going these questions may be more than academic at some point.

---

quote:

---

Is it fair game to kill another to survive?

---

Of course, in a real-world scenario it probably wouldn't be all grasses, just most. That would create a situation from which recovery might be possible, but it would cause a catastrophic crash in the human population. The unfortuate thing is that those who would survive and prosper in a situation like this might be ill-suited to recreate civilization.

[edited to add]

Thanks for mentioning the Haiti example, Alberio. From the little I know of Haiti, it sounds like it's almost a microcosm of what might happen to large parts of the world if we don't play our cards right real soon.

Anyone ever read Walter Miller's A Canticle for Liebowitz?

[ 25 September 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

Liebowitz was a good read.

Our current globalized system is actually very tenuous. I think a doubling of the price of oil (and therefore ocean transport) would pretty much mean the end of most of the things we currently assume. It could well mean famine.

quote:

---

Anyone ever read Walter Miller's A Canticle for Liebowitz?

---

Yes, and I recall that one Barbarian chieftain therein mocked the "grass eaters."

Thinking about the forms and structures of writing usually tempts people to begin comparing, and then to sketching out histories of poetics -- ie, notions of how forms and structures correspond with historical periods, different kinds of societies, etc.

Well ... we can decide to think about them cheerfully. Renewal and all that, eh?

Certainly in terms of cultural history, where we can see both big and little cycles, the little cycles are often invigorating. We don't need to lose everything good that we've learned in the past, but societies do become stale and decadent over time.

In poetics, the perception of all modes of expression and all attitudes to time and logic succeeding one another is considered the comic view of human existence -- the perception of the whole, of the cycles of nature. "Thou met'st with things dying, and I with things newborn."

I mean, one does not have to agree with the jihadists entirely to understand why so much of Western culture nauseates them, does one?

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

In a real-world scenario the effect of the disappearance of grass would have unpredictable effects on the potato crops; on the one hand, some plants that previously competed with grass would take off, and some of them would become harmful weeds when previously they were not an issue. On the other hand, some grasses are themselves considered weeds. Hard to say.

---

But my real question is not about the specifics of Christopher's scenario, but the generalities- in times of dire catastrophe, when the number of survivors is certain to be small, how far is it legitimate to go in order to be one of that small number? For that matter, you don't need a global catastrophe to ask questions like this. Consider the case where you and someone else are stranded in a place that is not only deserted but barren (so living off the land is not an option). You have enough supplies for one person to survive until help comes, but if you share them until they run out, neither of you will survive. In order for one of you to live, the other must die. How should such a situation be handled?

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

We all wonder about these things sometimes, I know: if it were me, would I be that brave/good/barbaric/murderous? It's just that it is very unlikely to be you, and ethical thinking requires more that we think about the choices we are likely to have to make.

For instance: you are on the, oh, maybe 60th floor of the WTC when the first plane hit, and one of your colleagues is in a wheelchair. Do you say to your colleague, "I'm sure the firemen will be here shortly" and split; or do you say, "I'll stay with you, no matter what"?

Or we're told to evacuate Toronto if we can, because everyone who stays is gonna die, but I know that I can't take the sick person I love most in the world with me, or my five cats?

I think we pretty much know that different people would make different choices, and that's all there is to it. I can answer my second question without hesitation: in that situation, I'd stay and die with the person and cats I love. I'm one of those who would have had enough by that point. My first question: I dunno. I think I'd have to be in that situation to be sure. I like to think that I'd have stayed with my colleague, but I'm not sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I know what you mean, Mike, and I have thought about such situations.

For instance: you are on the, oh, maybe 60th floor of the WTC when the first plane hit, and one of your colleagues is in a wheelchair. Do you say to your colleague, "I'm sure the firemen will be here shortly" and split; or do you say, "I'll stay with you, no matter what"?

Or we're told to evacuate Toronto if we can, because everyone who stays is gonna die, but I know that I can't take the sick person I love most in the world with me, or my five cats?

I think we pretty much know that different people would make different choices, and that's all there is to it. I can answer my second question without hesitation: in that situation, I'd stay and die with the person and cats I love. I'm one of those who would have had enough by that point. My first question: I dunno. I think I'd have to be in that situation to be sure. I like to think that I'd have stayed with my colleague, but I'm not sure.

But surely, above all: these hard choices are beyond what we normally understand as ethics. When and if these things happen, they will be catastrophe, the human tragedy, the moral agency of individuals strained far beyond anything we could expect them to cope with well, or at all.

---

The examples you give, in particular, are not really ethical choices at all. For instance, in the WTC example, it's not like you'd be saving your colleague by staying. Same with the cats or sick relative in your other example. The other person (or cat) dies either way, wheras you would live or die depending on whether you go or stay. (Come to think of it, it could still be looked at in ethical terms, because one of the factors that should be considered is the distress experienced by your surviving loved ones upon losing you). A real ethical dilemma would be this- going back to the WTC example, choosing whether or not to try to carry your disabled colleague down the sixty flights of stairs. If you leave your colleague, you probably survive while he or she probably dies. If you try to take them with you, there's the possibility that you'll both survive, but also the possibility that you'll both die, because of the delay. I'd hope that I'd do the latter, but I wouldn't be too hard on someone who didn't.

[ 26 September 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]

To me, the person who decides not to murder someone else in competition for food -- who says, I'd rather starve than murder -- is probably in about the same headspace as the person who decides to say, I'd rather die than abandon a friend.

In the original situation of total catastrophe that you set up, Mike, I would still see people dividing in the same ways. I think that many would give up almost immediately; many would struggle briefly and then decide that they'd rather die than compete; and a few would be fierce enough to go on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
Oh. I know that this is irrational -- I don't even know how to put it -- but I was assuming (still am, actually) that there is something ethical about staying with someone to the point of death, of not fighting back to live, of deciding that there is something more important than just living, under certain circs.

---

No doubt. And certainly there is something more important than just living under some circumstances. On that scale, though, I'd rank actually saving another's life a lot higher than just staying with them to the point of death. In strictly utilitarian terms, I don't think the utility of making someone's last few minutes less lonely would outweigh the disutility of making one's relatives lament your loss for the rest of their days... but it would also be very easy to be self-serving and hypocritical in making such a decision.

In those situations, each dividual acts on emotion, or on hir habits of thought. 'Should' doesn't come into it. We don't really know our limits until they're tested. If an act is abhorrent to me, i may be incapable of committing it, even to save my life. Or i may choose to go down with the community and culture that made me. Or i may try to survive any cost. As long as i have nobody to answer to, it doesn't matter which. If i outlived the catastrophe, i'd probably regret whatever i did.