--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > on 12/21/05 7:27 PM, sparaig at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > > But if the beach is loaded with people throwing back > starfish, > > > > > and you know of an isolated cove that no-one goes to where a > > > > > rare starfish makes its home, which is a better use of your > > > > > time? Throwing back one in millions, or one in ten? > > > > Clearly, in your example, some starfish are better than > > others, and thus are more deserving of being saved. The > > clear analogy to the way that the TMO does business is > > that the people who can pay the most deserve the attention. > > > > In my example, I was using Rick's metaphor to point out the > appropriateness of triage. > > > I just find it fascinating that the TM movement has so > > thoroughly indocrtinated its adherents into into "elitism > > as spiritual path" that they manage to fit elitism even > > into their analogies, without realizing it... > > > > Except I was quite explicit in suggesting that trying to save 1/10 > made better use of the throwing-arm of the kid than trying to save > 1/1,000,000. > > If you want to call that "elitist," be my guest.
Seems to me there's a sort of mixed metaphor here. Both parts apply, but in different ways. In terms of good biological stewardship of the planet, you would want to focus your efforts on saving one rare starfish rather than thousands of common ones, not because the rare one is more "deserving" but because if it dies, it increases the chances of the whole species becoming extinct. The more common species are likely to survive even if many thousands of them die, simply because there are more of them. The "triage" aspect takes a different angle. In the medical sense, triage means focusing one's efforts on the patients who are most likely to survive if they get immediate care (assuming resources are limited). It wouldn't make sense to expend limited resources on patients who are probably going to die no matter how much care they get, while not giving those who have a chance of surviving the care they need to do so. Again, it's not that those who are in better shape are more "deserving" of care in some abstract sense; it's that more patients total will survive if triage is followed. Triage is a practical principle, albeit an unpleasant one to have to implement. Triage in the good biological stewardship sense applies on the species level, not on the individual level. More *species* total will survive if efforts are focused on the rare ones. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Drugs Don't Discriminate. Get help for yourself or someone you know. http://us.click.yahoo.com/0I.OUB/ZbOLAA/d1hLAA/0NYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
