If I'm hanging off a cliff, save ME

I was reading the following passage from Ptit Gars de Shawinigan (very interesting blog by the way) ptitgars.blogspot.com

which made me consider the following situation:
There are two people, both unaffiliated with you, hanging off a cliff (yes, power trip! j/k) and you have the capability of saving only one of them. On the left, you are told he/she is a doctor and on the right a corporate lawyer. In all honesty, who do you initially choose to save?
You are then told that the doctor is a selfish and evil individual, a drunkard who goes home at 3am everynight to hammer his/her life partner into unconsciousness. Meanwhile the lawyer is head of a family of 5, caring, contributing immensely to cancer awareness and AIDS research and what not.
Do you reconsider you choice? Do you feel guilty of you first answer?

I apologize for these grossly stereotypical examples but I guess what I'm trying to highlight is how much we subconsciously estimate the value of people by titles, actions, image etc... How many of today's liberal pseudo-intellectuals like to talk about human equality as a matter of fact while trying desperately to repress the inherent (and inevitable) prejudices imposed on them by societal "truths".
I think we are made to feel ashamed of this, a situation much like racism in big canadian cities. Both are like a huge pimple oozing pus on your forehead, staring straight at you, but that you simply try to ignore. Maybe it's time to get proactive. Raise the ugly issues, confront them, question them, reform better perspectives.

So basically, Payam Eslami, in the blog wonders why the death of the Pope generates so much attention while the death of hundreds of Iraki kids due to malnutrition gets a three liner. He also draws attention to the all encompassing message of love and equality that the Pope advocated all his life, which purportedly makes the whole saintly coverage seem like hypocritical bullshit. I suppose many would nod in agreement, sigh and exclaim "what a pity". But on many levels, it's simply not as... simple. For example, one may argue that the Pope had such an incredible impact on millions of people today and historically, so it's necessary to have a tribune to a great man and well it's just normal that few people care about kids that have nothing to do with them (at least in our sheltered North-America-land). Ouch indeed. But can the amount of people one influences in his/her lifetime even be an indication of how valuable that person is? How terribly selfish to see someone's life as more valuable only when they're in relation to you? Say one person can save a hundred people; is that person worth more than someone who can save ten? What kind of stupidly abstract questions are these anyways? It's only media coverage: how much coverage someone gets is totally not an indication of how important or valuable someone is...right?
Bah,
Yum, equality, seems to be rooted in the founding belief that given the opportunity, the right environment (ie the right food to eat, DIY furniture, toilet seat, collection of books, stimulus,encouragment,plastic parents etc...) every one can amount to or do equally great things. Unfortunately my small grey jello box of chemicals cringes more and more at that idealistic notion.
Alright, break time over (and I managed to vaguely talk about nothing again)...back to procrastination and all that jazz... :(

Listening to: With tired eyes, tired minds, tired souls we slept. Explosions in the Sky.
Reading: Physical Chemistry by Raymond Chang
Feeling: apathetic, screwed for exams