[Guest]

I think we need some meatier discussions so here's a moral problem to chew over.

This came up in a conversation I had recently about the pros and cons of GM crops, so I'll use that to illustrate. GM crops may have the potential to feed a lot of starving people, by producing hardier crops with higher yields, but on the other hand their impact on the ecosystem could be unpredictable and irreversible. So which is more important, human life or the environment?

Common morality would say that human life is more important, particularly if you can save millions from starvation. But the moral principles underlying this are unworkable. We try to preserve and prolong human life as much as possible, and to combat anything which destroys human life, such as disease, hunger, disaster and war. Even old age is under attack. Our morality directs us to allow the human population to increase unchecked, and technology gives us the means to do so. But our success in doing so is clearly unsustainable. Measures such as GM crops provide not a solution, but a short term means to shoehorn yet more human beings into this world. Ultimately we must exceed the capacity of this planet to support human life.

Until we have the technology to populate other planets, the human population must stabilize. People are going to have to start dying in as great a quantity as they are being born.

How will this come about? Enforced birth control seems the most humane means, but is an abhorrent attack on freedom.

The only other way is that people are going to have to die in greatly increased numbers. The dream of living to a ripe old age and doing away with disease and hunger cannot be offered to everyone. It isn't mathematically possible.

This raises the question of whether we do any good by contributing to charities which fight disease and starvation. Are we not just postponing the day when we have to say "live and let die". By so doing we allow the world to become a more overcrowded place. Eventually a harsher morality will be forced on us. By that time the world will be a miserable and polluted place. The sooner we recognize this inevitability, the sooner we can work towards a better world with fewer people in it. But that means stabilizing the population sooner. Either we enforce population control, or accept that we must let those less fortunate than ourselves die, and give up trying to preserve every life on the planet.

I'm sure by now some people reading this will be furious. I am to some extent playing Devil's advocate, but this problem is real and ugly, and it's genuinely something that makes me think twice about the whole concept of charity. So let's have your comments!

[unreality]

I'm not furious- but perhaps we both benefit from atheistic clearheadness to throw away common morals and look at the big picture. Maybe we would be 'bad guys' of James Bond movies. But you're not crazy... the world governments need to come together and figure out how to reduce world population. But I wouldn't go as far to murder mass amounts of people, that would be a desperate road to take- we have to figure out a solution before that becomes more appealing. I think birth restriction, especially in high-concentration countries like China and India, is perfectly plausible.

[Guest]

i think that if the population gets too high, people will starve to death so it'll go down again. That's not very nice, I know, but not combatting other things that kill people isn't nice either. I say, just let things run their courses.

i'm not that big on the idea of birth restriction, if people want kids, people should be able to have kids.

[unreality]

So mass starvation and plagues and corpses in the street is preferable to controlling birth now while we can?

[Guest]

So mass starvation and plagues and corpses in the street is preferable to controlling birth now while we can?

So what happens when people accidentally exceed their "baby quota"

are they forced to have abortions? It opens up a whole new can of worms.

IMO the world will figure it out. If stuff happens, people will figure it out, because they'll HAVE to.

[Guest]

I happened across the somewhat related article yesterday: Singapore Prime Minister Urges Youth To Marry Early, Have Babies. Way to not think globally!

[unreality]

that's hilarious! lol @ this part:

He voiced particular concern about the Chinese community, whose fertility rate is the lowest of all Singapore's ethnic groups at 1.14. "They fail," Lee said.

[onetruth]

Little steps could be taken...like not allowing fertility treatments. If a couple wants a child that badly, they can adopt one who has no family and no hope. Also, perhaps not leaving elderly people on life support and dragging out an unavoidable end.

All steps would have temporary outcomes. There can't be any universal answer, and the world wouldn't stand for it if someone tried to enforce one.

[Guest]

I am curious if any of you have seen what happens to certain species (ants for ex) when they out grow their amount limits.

I think it was National Geographic that showed how the ants contract a fungus and grow huge horns out of their heads. Its actually a mushroom.

I think that is what is happening to us. If we keep producing more ppl then we will just be hit by new diseases. Take my MS for ex. AIDS, Cancer is the best ex.

But to have sterilization that is along the lines of eugenics (sp?) and reminds me of Nazism. Ford (car guy) was actually a big supporter of this.

But, I think that the earth will recover no matter what we do. We will kill ourselves with bioengeneering food. think of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Every time I have a us coke I have acne. My body is trying to get rid of it. Like Meth.

[onetruth]

Every time I have a us coke I have acne. My body is trying to get rid of it. Like Meth.

Put like that...I'm rethinking going and buying a Coke right now...lol...it's okay, I'm a Pepsi gal myself.

I do agree that the earth will take care of itself. Think of all the natural disasters we've had in the recent years...although, I really attribute that to the Bible and God being in control and doing exactly what He always said He would. End times, people!

Edit: Content

Edited August 19, 2008 by onetruth

[rookie1ja]

this topic reminds me of Thomas Malthus

"The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."

[Guest]

I am curious if any of you have seen what happens to certain species (ants for ex) when they out grow their amount limits.

I think it was National Geographic that showed how the ants contract a fungus and grow huge horns out of their heads. Its actually a mushroom.

...But to have sterilization that is along the lines of eugenics (sp?) and reminds me of Nazism. Ford (car guy) was actually a big supporter of this.

But, I think that the earth will recover no matter what we do. We will kill ourselves with bioengeneering food. think of High Fructose Corn Syrup.

That explains a lot. I have been a bit worried lately about the huge horns growing out of my head. I took a slice off one and fried it up last night, and I can confirm it is a kind of mushroom.

Maybe the whole eugenics issue is a bit of a side topic. I can't help but feel eugenics gets more of a bad press than it deserves (by Nazi association). Government-controlled large-scale eugenics is clearly a hugely dangerous thing, but in principle conscious decision making about the gene pool needn't be bad, and as our ability to manipulate DNA improves it would seem to be inevitable. Perhaps the Nazi associations stand in the way of healthy debate on that topic. Anyway, that's a digression. I'm not in favour of enforced birth control but doing it selectively in the interests of improving the species would be an especially dangerous move (though I can't help but feel that it hinges entirely upon what criteria are used to distinguish "good" genes from "bad", since the right criteria would allow us to continue the work of natural selection).

And as for the earth, I'm not worried about that. It's a big old ball of hot rock and it'll be supporting life for millions of years regardless of what human beings do to themselves. What concerns me is the quality of our world in the next few hundred years, which we are doing a great job of spoiling for ourselves.

Little steps could be taken...like not allowing fertility treatments. If a couple wants a child that badly, they can adopt one who has no family and no hope. Also, perhaps not leaving elderly people on life support and dragging out an unavoidable end.

All steps would have temporary outcomes. There can't be any universal answer, and the world wouldn't stand for it if someone tried to enforce one.

It seems to me that there is no solution or outcome which is not offensive on some level. Not allowing fertility treatments would have a significant long term effect I think, but I can see why the people who take fertility treatments would consider that unfair.

Some people believe that we should all get the same chances (which would imply, for example, that the state should fund fertility treatments since we should all have the same chance to procreate). Extend that idea worldwide and it would imply that wealth should be spread evenly and everyone should benefit equally from the longer life that this would bring. We are a product of nature and nature was never fair. Do we really want a fair world?

I personally feel strongly against any interventionist policies such as sterilization, and I think we should continue the advancement of medical science to allow us to live longer, healthier lives. But something's got to give, and all I am left with is accepting inequality on a global scale.

Some people get what they want (food, babies, health, life) and others must do without. What criteria determine this? "Wealth" is the natural answer to that question, and perhaps the best one. Money has no racial, moral or ideological bias. It goes to those who win it, by fair means or foul.

I'm surprised at the lack of opposition to my stance on charity. If I see someone who needs help, I would like to think that I would stop and help them. That's what being a decent human being is all about. And yet if we see pictures on TV of people starving, should we say "Too bad. They live a long way away and you can't help the whole world." On the face of it that would seem like extreme hypocrisy. What I'm suggesting is that it makes perfect sense to think that way. You can't help everybody in the world, and indeed shouldn't. Morality works on a small scale. You look after your family, your friends, your social group, and those you come into contact with. But you shouldn't try to extend it further. What I'm suggesting is that charity is a mistake, a misapplication of our moral principles. Surely someone has something to say about that?

[Guest]

I'm surprised at the lack of opposition to my stance on charity. If I see someone who needs help, I would like to think that I would stop and help them. That's what being a decent human being is all about. And yet if we see pictures on TV of people starving, should we say "Too bad. They live a long way away and you can't help the whole world." On the face of it that would seem like extreme hypocrisy. What I'm suggesting is that it makes perfect sense to think that way. You can't help everybody in the world, and indeed shouldn't. Morality works on a small scale. You look after your family, your friends, your social group, and those you come into contact with. But you shouldn't try to extend it further. What I'm suggesting is that charity is a mistake, a misapplication of our moral principles. Surely someone has something to say about that?

"Charity is a mistake?"

Just think of where you are now. You are not one of the unfortunate people, living out on the street with nowhere to go. You have the money to live comfortably and happily. It's so easy for you to say "Don't help the poor" because you don't need help and you don't what it's like and how hard it is for those who do. Imagine if you were in their shoes, would you be actively telling wealthy people not to help you?

I think we should do what we can for the less fortunate and if we want to help people far away, why not?

Edited August 20, 2008 by lemonymelon

[unreality]

1) things aren't fair, will never be fair, shouldn't be fair, and aren't "meant" to be fair (not talking deity-wise, just universe-wise and evolution-wise). Even in the case of religions, fairness is not abundant. And fairness is impossible. Everybody can't be the same- and what about those that wanted to be different? that can't be fair! Basically, "fairness" is like those weird books about utopias were everyone is exactly the same and they live horrible bland lives and the protagonists frees himself/herself/hisherpeople from this oppression and they have freedom. It seems that Freedom and Fairness are even opposites from each other. Life is not fair <- cliche, but true

2) that being said, it has nothing to do with morals and charity. Why not give to starving people? If you want to, if you can afford it, it makes the world a better place. Spreading your wealth around is a good thing but still not a "fair" thing (which is good), since there are still millions more who haven't been helped. And that's fine if you're doing what you can, as there is no obligation to

3) all of our sense of the world is within our mind- we do everything because we want to do that in the circumstances. Let's say someone has you at gunpoint and says "gimme your wallet!", and you say "okay, chill, man" and hand them your wallet carefully. Did you want to do that? you might be tempted to say "of course not", but the answer is "yes". You wanted to do that considering the circumstances. If you had wanted to do something else (like punch him in the face), you would've done it. But you deliberately chose to hand him your wallet, because that's what you wanted at the moment (ie, "wanted" as in "wanted more than the alternatives", such as getting shot or PROBABLY getting shot). Likewise for helping other people. You help them because YOU want to help them, because it makes YOU feel good, because YOU know that YOU helped someone. If there was no sense of evolved charity for other people, we wouldn't give. It makes sense to have evolved that way, and it's probably a misfiring of the original evolutionary purpose, but the "reward" is still there so we give even where it may not be best for our genes. Think about sex- orgasms have evolved to increase sexual desire and heighten offspring. Yet you can use birth control and still have an orgasm. The sex is not being used for the original reason, but it's not an intelligent process, it doesn't 'know'... that's an evolutionary misfire, in a way. Kind of like giving to someone across the world. So we still do it, and it's fine

back to fairness: what about animals? what about the earth? what about different types of people? genes? DNA? who decides what is fair? is THAT fair? etc. Fairness is not a virtue and life is not fair- life is diverse and that's a wonderful thing. We can still help other people because that's a good thing too

[Guest]

Wow now this is one where I can really piss people off BAD lol. I am such a misanthropist. I truly believe that the majority of people are born evil if there is such a thing. I am one who is for euthanasia and heavily for the death penalty. I believe that we are starting to get overpopulated due to advances in medicine which makes it difficult for nature to take its course. Examples of this are people who are in bad car accidents and placed on life support until the brain can heal itself lets say, if it were not for those advances in medicine those people would have been toast so to speaks. Also newborns who are premature wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell if it were 50 years ago. todays technology allows for us to prolong life that would have ended without it.

I hope this doesn't piss people off and I in no way mean to be offensive. please keep in mind this is coming from a misanthropic atheist

[unreality]

I'm an atheist too, but I value human life and respect it, and I am all for medical technology. However, if we can make abortions cheaper, less repercussions, etc, and countries across the world (especially highly populated ones in the Indochina area) squeeze a little and put "baby quotas", we can stop overpopulation without having to "off" people that are already on this planet and already living lives on it

[Guest]

I must say I disagree with rene83. I'm also an atheist but not (I hope) a misanthrope. Medical advances allow people to live where otherwise they might have died, but that's progress. We may as well use the capabilities we have.

"Charity is a mistake?"

Just think of where you are now. You are not one of the unfortunate people, living out on the street with nowhere to go. You have the money to live comfortably and happily. It's so easy for you to say "Don't help the poor" because you don't need help and you don't what it's like and how hard it is for those who do. Imagine if you were in their shoes, would you be actively telling wealthy people not to help you?

I think we should do what we can for the less fortunate and if we want to help people far away, why not?

Thanks for that lemonymelon, at last a dissenting voice! Everything you say is absolutely correct. I am wealthy and privileged (mainly as a result of dumb luck) and I do not really know what it is like to suffer as many people do. And if I were in their shoes I would no doubt be singing a different tune (through self-interest if not for any other reason, though a greater sympathy for those who do without would no doubt also play a part).

But none of that stands in the way of the point that I am making: that by working towards greater equality and seeking to save human life wherever we can, we are ultimately making the world a worse place. It's not a conclusion I'm comfortable with (like I say, I don't wish to be a misanthrope), but I find it rather inescapable. And I don't wish to say that all charity is necessarily wrong. It depends on the cause. For example protecting children against child abuse is a very worthy objective. But where preservation of all human life is the goal, maybe it isn't what the world needs.

Unreality's defence of charity seems to hinge on the fact that it is (a) pretty ineffective since it's just a drop in the ocean and (b) what we want to do to make ourselves feel better. I don't think ineffectiveness stands in charity's favour. Where the goal is wrong, anything that works toward that goal, even in a small way, is doing no good. The fact of it making us feel better is more interesting. I would argue against that by saying that, having given it some thought, such charity would no longer make me feel like I was doing good so it no longer performs that function.

You could argue that any action you could take at your own cost, out of a sense of good, is a good thing (even if it is misguided and actually does no good in itself). Why? Because it affirms that we are "good people" and prepared to make sacrifices to help others. The points I am making in this thread may prevent someone from continuing in such blissful ignorance, so the only moral thing to do would be to delete this thread. Unless you value critical thought as I do.

I certainly wouldn't want someone to take the arguments I am making and apply them with conviction. Where I apply them, it is without conviction. Don't believe in belief.

[Guest]

A lot of countries that have an 'educated' population make better choices in general - putting it simply for now - how will this education reach the poor and needy that have trouble finding the next meal

Overpopulation will bring many troubles and in some areas it will just be a disease that already exist, dont forget that superbugs are comming along. Yes we are rising to the challenges of nature, but nature keeps setting the bar.

Another thought too many people equals too little land equals too little crop - maybe we eat the dead and 'survive'. Was this meant to be?

[Guest]

A lot of countries that have an 'educated' population make better choices in general - putting it simply for now - how will this education reach the poor and needy that have trouble finding the next meal

Overpopulation will bring many troubles and in some areas it will just be a disease that already exist, dont forget that superbugs are comming along. Yes we are rising to the challenges of nature, but nature keeps setting the bar.

Another thought too many people equals too little land equals too little crop - maybe we eat the dead and 'survive'. Was this meant to be?

ed to say - just absorbed Rookie's post - so a bit of a repeat

Re charity - only works if the haves have enough to give to the have nots - do they have enough?

Edited August 21, 2008 by Lost in space

[Guest]

I'm an atheist too, but I value human life and respect it, and I am all for medical technology. However, if we can make abortions cheaper, less repercussions, etc, and countries across the world (especially highly populated ones in the Indochina area) squeeze a little and put "baby quotas", we can stop overpopulation without having to "off" people that are already on this planet and already living lives on it

FORCING controlling of birth and "baby quotas" is, IMO, not a very clever thing to do. Take China, for example. People favour having boys so their families can prosper. The law on how many children families can have has resulted in baby girls being abandoned. The amount of homeless girls is much higher than the amount of homeless boys in the country. If we force "baby quotas" (i'm getting used to saying that now), the sexist situation in China will most likely happen in other countries too. I'm not one of these "fair haters", and the fact that having a terrible life, or even being killed in the womb, based on gender is stupid and injust.

[Guest]

The problem is that human's believe they are superior in a way. We only come up with solutions when hit with a problemo.

Okay food shortage. First of all, you have to distinguish between poverty food shortage and geographical food shortage. If the problem is that more and more people are finding it hard to buy food then thats understandble. The world's economy is a bit tospy-turvy after all. The problem there is (in my opionion) biofuels. Who's bright idea was that. "I know, there are people starving in the developing world, but there is a global climate problem as well. I know, will waste food that we are already using and therefore put more people into problems!!"

Whether you believe in a supernatural being, we are animals at the end of the day. Now populations are roughly controlled by predators, disease, food and space. Now the problem is this. We are tooo healthy. THere are more people surving into their eighties and nineties (in the UK i'm talking about btw) and more people being born. In other terms, the mortality rate is too low.

Now regarding food, GM crops are a possibility - in the sense you have the ability to control the growing abilities. For example, say you want to grow Crop A which needs a lot of water. But you live in the Atacama desert where there hasn't been rain for hundreds of years. THere is the possibility to manipulate the genes to for it to adapt it there. But then again you have to think about the knock-on affect. Will the crop wipe out other crops i.e.

The other problem is space. The Earth ain't getting bigger, and there is the real possibility in the next hundred years, especially with the population displacement caused from the global climate change that we will run out of "habiltable" room. I fear, that will cause more disease and another pandemic. There are real challenges facing the human race, not just global warming. At the moment i don't have the answers. Do you??

[onetruth]

Whether you believe in a supernatural being, we are animals at the end of the day.

Actually, my belief that God created us in His image means that I believe that we are NOT animals at the end of the day. And if we ARE all just animals, then we should just depopulate the earth in whatever way we choose, and no one should be held accountable for causing any sort of mass death.

[unreality]

We are animals, just like all other animals. It's the height of arrogance and ignorance to say that we are vastly different enough from other animals to put ourselves in a different kingdom of classification. But just because we are the most intelligent and developed species on the planet does not give us the right to "depopulate the Earth". We should have a deep respect for the Earth and the other animals on it, as well as the environment and habitats in which we and others grow and prosper. To target your last sentence specifically, nobody IS accountable for causing the crisis we have today, humanity did it as a whole, and it's no use throwing blame around, it's time to fix the problem that we caused so that we don't leave a scarred planet behind us. We have to respect nature and the world we live in, it's part of our own inherent nature to survive and pass down our genes. It always amazes me when theists and god-believers with "morals" show their true colors, ie, 'without my religion/deity-of-choice I would just be a serial killer or a mass murderer or depopulate the earth in any manner I choose and not be held accountable', which just makes me laugh at their so-called moral code- held in place by fear/awe of a higher power, and not by true compassion for your fellow beings

I only bring up this point because of the user above me flamed atheists, basically We aren't better than animals, and we aren't better than our Earth, and we need to respect that and do something about it and save humanity and its environment. Throwing around things like 'we must be better than everyone else cuz we're more advanced' is irrelevant to the situation. As yoktado, it doesn't matter what your religion is, you should see the need that we need to do something, especially now

[Guest]

Actually, my belief that God created us in His image means that I believe that we are NOT animals at the end of the day. And if we ARE all just animals, then we should just depopulate the earth in whatever way we choose, and no one should be held accountable for causing any sort of mass death.

Well I am not going to comment on the theological part of your post. There is another thread for that. But I think your answer is a rather oversimplification of a complicated question. Black and white is never a good way to see anything.

[onetruth]

We are animals, just like all other animals. It's the height of arrogance and ignorance to say that we are vastly different enough from other animals to put ourselves in a different kingdom of classification. But just because we are the most intelligent and developed species on the planet does not give us the right to "depopulate the Earth". We should have a deep respect for the Earth and the other animals on it, as well as the environment and habitats in which we and others grow and prosper. To target your last sentence specifically, nobody IS accountable for causing the crisis we have today, humanity did it as a whole, and it's no use throwing blame around, it's time to fix the problem that we caused so that we don't leave a scarred planet behind us. We have to respect nature and the world we live in, it's part of our own inherent nature to survive and pass down our genes. It always amazes me when theists and god-believers with "morals" show their true colors, ie, 'without my religion/deity-of-choice I would just be a serial killer or a mass murderer or depopulate the earth in any manner I choose and not be held accountable', which just makes me laugh at their so-called moral code- held in place by fear/awe of a higher power, and not by true compassion for your fellow beings

I only bring up this point because of the user above me flamed atheists, basically We aren't better than animals, and we aren't better than our Earth, and we need to respect that and do something about it and save humanity and its environment. Throwing around things like 'we must be better than everyone else cuz we're more advanced' is irrelevant to the situation. As yoktado, it doesn't matter what your religion is, you should see the need that we need to do something, especially now

That's not what I said. I didn't say that if I had no spiritual beliefs that I would be a mass murderer. Just then when it comes down to it, no one would have any business telling me that I'm wrong if I were. If one animal kills another for whatever reason -- food, defense, to prove to be the alpha -- is that wrong? Is that right? Is it different for humans? Or is it the reasoning behind the kill that makes us different?

Anyway, I don't have compassion for people based out fear or awe, since that wouldn't be genuine. When I see people hurt, even people I don't know, it hurts me, and I'm often brought to tears for other people. I can also laugh and rejoice with them. That being said, I believe that if we were to try to limit or lower population, it would be a very rocky road that we would tread. I definitely wouldn't want to be forced to limit how many children I had. But perhaps if there were repercussions for, say, teen birth (i.e. the teen has to give the child up for adoption), people might start making responsible choices. I know a 15 yr old girl that gave birth last year. There were about 7 pregnant girls in her grade. But I think that some various steps that could be taken would only affect certain groups of people, and each country would probably need its own plan. I'm not okay with China's plan, because I've known several girls who were adopted, and it breaks my heart to think of all the ones that weren't, and that were left to die. There is no person/government that would be in the position to make a choice to let people die, nor to choose which should die (I'm speaking in general terms). His name was Hitler, and I'm sure just about everyone on here does not like him. I don't believe the answer is to depopulate the earth, but to make sure those that do populate it do so wisely and take care of what they have.

[unreality]

I see what you mean about how restricting birth isn't a good idea... but after that, I'm out of ideas ;D lol. If we don't do something, the earth will spiral into overpopulation

about the morals thing, even though is a sidetrack from the topic: I can see where the dilemma rises about animals killing other animals. For us, we don't decide that. It's sort of an inter-species thing. If that's acceptable, then it's acceptable and it's how they live- ie, if a lion kills another to become the alpha-lion (I'm not sure if that happens or not). But there are cases when animals "break" those moral codes, and they get shunned by their society- it does happen. No pack of jackals wants a jackal that kills other jackals while they're sleeping, etc. Morals depend on the group dynamic and what's accepted in their community. Humans, due mostly to our evolution and minds, don't usually kill others of the same species, and our moral code has developed around that. It's just not accepted in MOST human societies. Though think about a remote jungle colony who still follow ancient sacrificial traditions... it all depends on what the community accepts. The group dynamic

back to the topic at hand: you and LM have convinced me that birth control is not the option. However, are there any feasible options? I agree that each country should take it into their own hands, but are there any plausible ways?