<<<inbreeding would almost certainly lead to quick extinction in any event. They'd be better off doing what they wanted; nature being nature they would almost certainly
end up reproducing sooner or later anyway,>>>
You've changed the subject, I think, from the ethical principles at issue in this entirely hypothetical situation to how the science would would work.
And evaded answering, also, I think, by saying that sooner or later they'd be mating, anyway. Which is probably true, but doesn't confront the ethical issue Michael has raised.
So since it's hypothetical, let's say the science works fine-- the two might, in fact, be able successfully to begin the repopulating of the planet. If the female were willing to mate with the male. But she isn't, and appears determined to stay that way.
I would interested to hear some possible reasons the female might offer -- let's say write down in her journal -- for declining to begin the humanity-recreating process with this sole male that wouldn't make her the ultimate sociopath. I mean, the very definition of one: "My desire is not to, so... no human species."
I can think of at least a couple of reasons she might cite that wouldn't define her in this way-- reasons based in ethics.
But I would be interested to know what would others think would be some reasons for declining, reasons she might confide to her journal, in which she records all her thoughts, that wouldn't show her as a monster of sociopathy; or, seen charitably, simply as the most selfish of the human beings who had managed to live, before this species ended, by her choice? |
