You wrote:
"However, I take issue with so many people's easy assumption that the world is overpopulated. The world is empty. It looks full because we make such poor use of it."
You assume alot there! Few humans, in percentage terms, are aware that population is an issue, let alone have an opinion on it. How many are the "so many" you refer to?
Then you qualify the judgement that the planet is overpopulated by humans as an "easy assumption". Why do you think that? It is a tough decision to judge ones own kind as a serious factor in planetary health (& therefor via feedback in societal health).
"The world is empty" obviously is meant to mean 'of people'. That is, of course, a judgement call based on the primary filters/parameters one is using, and the weight given to the consensus opinions of physical scientists, social scientists, economists, religious leaders, politicians, business leaders, etc.
You claim "it [earth] looks full". To whom? Only to those claiming population is a problem? Hundreds of millions (maybe a billion) living in squalor would not disagree that "it looks full". They might realize that competition for water, fuel, food... is systemically linked via feedback to their unhappiness; they might realize that their ration of necessities is constrained by the number of others seeking a share.
You claim that "it [earth] is empty". This means 'of people' I suppose. Well, Earth is teeming with life forms - many microscopic, microbial, viral, fungal, and insect. We hear alot about whales, fish, birds, large & small mammals being threatened, but there are thousands more that humans are largely unaware of.
The best short paper I know on humans as part of the biosphere is
Patch Disturbance and the Human Niche
by John M. Logan
http://208.240.253.224/page78.htm
It is human hubris to believe that their combined intention and ingenuity are capable, without limit, of solving all problems and delivering well-being to all (until supernova?). It is also the belief of religions and various other value based creeds of societal organization (such as Georgism?) that all would be wonderful if only all humans followed 'our' system.
Your discounting of the judgements of those in the life sciences on a matter which is predominantly in that realm is mind-boggling. Garrett Hardin's last book was called The Ostrich Factor!
If anyone can point by point rebut this, I predict you will win a Darwin
Award. :-)
http://www.dieoff.com/page121.htm (full paper)
(excerpted)
1) An acceptable system of ethics is contingent on its ability to preserve
the
ecosystems which sustain it.
(2) Biological necessity has a veto over the behavior which any set
of moral
beliefs can allow or require.
(3) Biological success is a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition
for
any acceptable ethical theory. In summary, no ethics
can be grounded in biological impossibility; no ethics can be incoherent
in
that it requires ethical behavior that ends all further
ethical behavior. Clearly any ethics which tries to do so is mistaken;
it is
wrong.
An Abstract of "A General Statement of Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons"
Although "The Tragedy of the Commons" is widely acclaimed, activists
in
environmental causes as well as professionals in ethics
continue to act as if the essay had never been written. They ignore
the
central thesis that traditional, a priori thinking in ethics is
mistaken and must be discarded. Hence the need remains to give the
tragedy of
the commons a more general statement--one
which can convince a wide public of the correctness of its method and
principles. In essence Hardin's essay is a thought
experiment. Its purpose is not to make a historical statement but rather
to
demonstrate that tragic consequences can follow from
practicing mistaken moral theories. Then it proposes a system-sensitive
ethics
that can prevent tragedy. The general statement of
the tragedy of the commons demonstrates that an a priori ethics constructed
on
human-centered, moral principles and a definition
of equal justice cannot prevent and indeed always supports growth in
population and consumption. Such growth, though not
inevitable, is a constant threat. If continual growth should ever occur,
it
eventually causes the breakdown of the ecosystems which
support civilization. Henceforth, any viable ethics must satisfy these
related
requirements:
(1) An acceptable system of ethics is contingent on its ability to
preserve
the ecosystems which sustain it.
(2) Biological necessity has a veto over the behavior which any set
of moral
beliefs can allow or require.
(3) Biological success is a necessary (though not a sufficient) condition
for
any acceptable ethical theory. In summary, no ethics
can be grounded in biological impossibility; no ethics can be incoherent
in
that it requires ethical behavior that ends all further
ethical behavior. Clearly any ethics which tries to do so is mistaken;
it is
wrong.
February 26, 1997
Herschel Elliott
Emeritus Philosophy
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611l
=================
Steve Kurtz
--
http://magma.ca/~gpco/
http://www.scientists4pr.org/
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a
finite world is either a madman or an economist.�Kenneth Boulding
