Why thanks.
I do agree that focusing on the issues and arguments is much more productive
dialectic.
The whole concept of human population raises numerous ethical issues and
quandaries.
Start from the epistemologic: How do I know that increased population will
result in a deterioration in the quality of life for most? How can human
innovation and intelligence counteract the impacts of larger populations?
Can it? Should it?
Move to the metaphysical: What do we really mean when we say "deterioration
in quality of life?"
On to the ethical: What are my rights as an individual to find fulfillment
and happiness in the creation of offspring and a family? How are those
rights to be balanced with the rights of others to find fulfillment and
happiness, if the production of offspring can potentially detract from the
healthfulness of the environment and impact others ability to find
fulfillment and happiness? How does the right to bear offspring balance
with one's responsibility to give those children the same or better
opportunities than we have had? Cultural issues can enter in here. U.S.
culture stresses upward mobility by new generations (as one example). Many
cultures stress social stability across generations. Which culture is
"right?"
Population growth is birth rate minus death rate. So obviously there are
two parts of the equation that can be used to reduce population growth.
Where is the ethical line? Voluntary assisted suicide? State mandated
sterilizations (mainland China comes to mind)? Drastic cuts in health care
funding? No more state funded research into life-prolonging treatments?
Education and empowerment? There are many ways to achieve the goal.
Ethically, what infringes on individual rights to attaining happiness? What
infringes on societal rights?
Then enters the statistically selfish gene. If population is reduced,
offspring are limited, what opportunities are being missed? What great
intellects are not being born? What world-saving inventions or work will
never be accomplished? Numbers increase the odds. Reducing numbers
decreases the odds.
This is a complex topic that can stir very deep emotions in many. The world
will change. Some changes will be caused by us. We will need to adapt. So
far for our short history on this planet, we have adapted rather well. I
have faith we can do so, both adapt to conditions as they change, and adapt
our behaviors to impact those changes.
Cheers,
Richard.
________________________________
Richard Haimann, P.E.
(562) 628-1980
(562) 684-4312 (e-fax)
mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.haimann.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steve
> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Global Warming Anyone?
>
>
> Actually Jennifer, I think you have unfairly lumped in Richard with
> the rest of us bad actors.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> --- Jennifer Cypher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Ray, Steve, Richard, Brad, John etc. - why don't you all sign up
> > for MSNM
> > or ICQ or some such so you can continue this discussion amongst
> > yourselves?
> > The information and discussion is fine, but the personal slanging
> > match
> > isn't too pleasant to watch, nor it is inviting others to join what
> > could
> > be a constructive conversation.
> >
> > Just a thought,
> > jen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jennifer Cypher
> > Faculty of Environmental Studies
> > York University
> > [log in to unmask]
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards.
> http://movies.yahoo.com/
|