A few thoughts on Thanos as an ethical philosopher.
Thanos is presented as an ethical person, acting on a theory:
1. The universe’s resources are finite.
2. Life consumes, but does not produce, resources.
3. Thus, for anyone to thrive, large numbers of people have to be killed.
Thanos’ daughter Gomorrah rejects this conclusion, arguing that “We don't know that!”
She is questioning the idea that the universe's resources are finite.
And indeed, this is often assumed to be case, but *we don't know that*.
We can challenge Thanos' ethics in other ways.
For example, here's an alternate ethical theory:
1. Life itself is the ultimate resource.
2. Life is capable of creating new possibilities, turning few resources into many resources.
3. Thus, for anyone to thrive, we need as many unique individuals as we can get.
This is the theory that drives the Avengers.
You might think, for example, that with a super-powerful god around, you wouldn't need a raccoon and a talking tree.
Or that someone who can shoot lasers from their hands, doesn't need someone who's good with a bow & arrow.
The #Avengers utterly reject that idea. It's the diversity of their team that allows them to take on unprecedented problems, and solve them in unanticipated ways.
As the stakes keep getting higher, they keep choosing to fight for their diversity and individuality, rather than taking what might seems to be easy strategic wins.
They act as if people are the ultimate strategic resource.
What's compelling about Infinity War is that it pits these two opposing philosophies against each other.
*And it doesn't tell us which one is right.*
In that way, it's just like life. “We don't know that!”—and in our ignorance, we have to make a leap of faith, and choose.
unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Should we really be spending money on X when Y is going on?”
This is a common argument against art, science, technology, infrastructure, exploration, charity, compassion, change, reform, and progress of all kinds.
This assumes that humanity is operating on a fixed budget, and that the obstacle to doing something good or desirable is every other good thing we might do.
This is like straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.
In reality, the primary obstacle to anything good or desirable is apathy and lack of vision.
People sometimes discount one-on-one “coffee” meetings. But I don’t know anything else that is as good at quickly determining personal alignment—and the particular *dimensions* of that alignment.
The more “goal-directed” the meeting is, the less this is true.
The whole value proposition is in discovering unknown connections and resonances between you.
Or discovering that there is no real resonance at all.