Michael Kreek wrote:
>
[snip]
> Finally, to demonstrate why I can't hop aboard the population
> bandwagon immediately here are some questions I would need
> answered before I, at least, possibly could:
> 3a.
> To repeat: Is population control "value-free" and, if not (which
> I suggest must be the answer), is it open to its "cherished
> values" being questioned along with everyone else's? What are
> those values?
There simply is no human action or inaction (that covers it all...)
which
is value-free. And probably population control people have
different and even conflicting values: some may want to save the
earth for "other species" (with the impact on human beings being
a secondary consideration); others may wish to save the earth
for *human* wellfare (with other species playing an ancillary role),
etc.
> 3b.
> To repeat: Is population control itself a systematic or holistic
> (either side of the disjunction not necessarily meaning the same
> thing) approach or does it see itself as "the answer"?
It will certainly create *problems*, i.e., the increased need for
social services in an aging population. These may be problems
we choose to accept as the price for the goods we want from
population control, but they will be problems,
with their costs and impacts, nonetheless.
> 3c.
> Is it not necessary to think of population as applying at both
> ends of a human life? That is, should we not set a limit to
> longevity of human life as well as a limit to the number of human
> lives while we are at it and, if not, why not? (Is this value of
> people to desire to live forever not something that should also
> be questioned while we are questioning other "cherished values"?)
This is a powerful question, but I would argue that human
existence at least potentially runs counter to many of
the arguments in favor of the grim reaper. Other species
can evolve only by current individuals dying and being
replaced with new ones who evolve *across* individuals, not
*within* particular individuals. Humans,
with their posers of self-reflection
and self-modification, could potentially evolve without limit
("Onward and Upward forever") without needing to replace old
individuals with new ones.
Also, there is the moral/existential/etc. issue of the individual
person's attachment to their life (which, of course, is not an
immutable given -- life can be made so wretched that a
person "wants to die", and Buddhists and others can apparently
become indifferent to the continuation of their individual life
under any circumstances).
[snip]
> 3e.
> Should we not limit the size of each person's "environmental
> footprint" which, of course, is related to their "material
> wealth" before we attempt to limit births or along with limiting
> births? If not, why not?
If scientific/technological advance enables us to do ever
more with ever less, then, *at least in principle*, we could
have high and increasing standard of living for an ever
greater percent of the population, combined with reducing
the impact on the environment.
> 3f.
> There is no more cherished value to us Americans, I suggest, than
> our economic system. It is our unspoken state religion. Why is
> this system of values (which is contrary, of course, to its much
> rumored status as a science, assuming science itself is not a
> system of values) not being questioned in the article above when
> it is far more pervasive as a "cherished value" than "smart
> growth"?
Excellent question: How can "the invisible hand of the marketplace"
which works by principles analogous to hydrostatic equilibrium
be expected to optimize *any* normative value except for
competition itself taken as a value?
> 3g.
> And should all the issues raised by all these questions not be
> discussed along with the issue of poplation control before we
> judge the merits of population control. And, if not, why not? Or,
> have they already been discussed and, if so, where?
As Sartre said: to not act is to act. If we don't try to
control the population, then we are "voting" for increased
population and all ite consequences.
Since increased population seems
to portend many serious problems, doesn't it make sense to
take the "conservative" path while we debate the matter, and
try to bring population growth under control? If it turns out
that unlimited population is really best,
we could always start reproducing
rapidly again. The world's current population growth has almost
all occurred in the past 100 years, so it wouldn't take too
long to get back on track....
> --
> Michael Kreek
> VT&T
> RR 1 Box 593
> Walpole NH 03608
> 603 756 3750
> &
> Acting Executive Director
> Institute for Vernacular Philosophy
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5307/lwjtitle.html
> 603 756 3754
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[SGML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
