If we start with two equally contributing profiles, why is it that one profile's history is readily available while the second can only be seen by editing a URL or following a link that doesn't describe its target? Change history describes a form of sources that don't end up in citations. They tell us who contributed what and in what context. That history should not be tossed aside.
Let's say that doe-1 was imported from a GEDCOM years ago and never changed since then. Later, doe-2 was created and received many enhancements over the years. Merge them and the resulting changelog will show the GEDCOM import, the merge proposal and the merge. The history that would explain all the enhancements, on the other hand, may still be there, but hidden away where it's hard to find and as if it were somehow less important. If one profile, and its history, should be preferred over the other doe-2 would be the better choice.
The choice of which id should be retained by the merged profile would be better done by computer. If, using the lower numbered id convention, doe-3 was merged into doe-2 and then at a later date the merged doe-2 was merged into doe-1, doe-3 would redirect to doe-2 which would then redirect to doe-1. If a program were to actually test redirects it would find that the best way to avoid a chain of redirects would be for the second merge to also end up at doe-2 with both doe-1 and doe-3 redirecting to it.
The choice of which profile edits should be based on and the choice of which id the merge ends up using could and should be independent decisions.