Under the current administration not only will we not be going to Mars, but even If we did and a astronaut was left behind. No way no how would current political parties in Congress, ( much less our current president) spend the money it would take to save said astronaut.
My real wonder would be if the majority of Americans would okay the amount of money it would cost to save that one man? I know Maga wouldn’t. But the rest? Just made we wondered. Now with Project Hail Mary coming to theaters and the excellent novel. Its the same question.
Resources are finite, though. If rescuing one person requires, say, 10 units of resources, but rescuing 10 others require only 1 unit of resources, isn’t choosing to rescue the 1 over the 10 already placing relative value on human lives, by declaring them to be 10x as valuable as the others? This is obviously operating on the assumption that we don’t have the resources to rescue everyone who needs rescuing.
In that scenario, I agree the pragmatic choice is to save the majority.
But many situations tend to be complex and aren’t as clear as a trolley problem, so I want to avoid falling into the trap of seeing a false dilemma when there’s possibly more than two options.