history and of the race and from the point of view of making
a kind of world where _Titanic_ disasters could not happen, would have
chosen on the deck of the _Titanic_ that night, very much the way God
would.

From the point of view of Man there would have been no discrimination in
favour of a woman because she was a woman.

The last cry of the last man that the still listening life-boats heard
coming up out of the sea that night might have been the cry of the man
who had invented a ship that could not sink.

There would not have been a woman in a life-boat or a woman sinking in
the sea who would not have had this man saved before a woman.

If we could absolutely know all about the people, who are the people in
this world that we should want to have saved first, that we would want
to have taken to the life-boats and saved first at sea?

The women who are with child.

And the men who are about to have ideas.

And the men who man the boats for them, who in God's name and in the
name of a world protect its women who are with child, and its men who
are about to have ideas.

The world is different from the _Titanic_. We do not need to line up our
immortal fellow human beings, sort them out in a minute on a world and
say to them, "Go here and die!" "Go there and live!" We are able to
spend on a world at least an average of thirty-five years apiece on all
these immortal human beings we are with, in seeing what they are like,
in guessing on what they are for and on their relative value, and in
deciding where they belong and what a world can do with them.

We ought to do better in saving people on a world. We have more time to
think.

What would we try to do if we took the time to think? Would there be any
way of fixing upon an order for saving people on a world? What would be
the most noble, the most universal, the most Godlike and democratic
schedule for souls to be saved on--on a world?

I think the man that would save the most other people should be saved
first. It would not be democratic to save an ordinary man, a man who
could just save himself, just think for himself, when saving the man
next to him instead would be saving a man who would save a thousand
ordinary men, or men who have gifts for thinking only of themselves.

Of course one man who thinks merely of himself is as good as another man
who thinks merely of himself, but from the point of view of a democracy
every common man has an inalienable right--