FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-18-2002, 09:40 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 640
Post

I didn't say no one around, I've said no humans around. Or is this kind of thinking just another illustration of inherent value system that only humans matter? Do you think that no other species would have developed to this level of sentience if humans haven't?
alek0 is offline  
Old 02-18-2002, 09:51 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Indianapolis area
Posts: 3,468
Post

alek0,

Or is this kind of thinking just another illustration of inherent value system that only humans matter?

I don't know what this sentence means.

Do you think that no other species would have developed to this level of sentience if humans haven't?

Probably, yes. At any rate, I'm not disputing that there might be other possible valuing agents than humans. I'm disputing that value is "inherent" in diversity of life. You and I happen to value diversity of life because we recognize that a robust biosphere is supportive of human life, not because we sense some inherent value init.
Pomp is offline  
Old 02-18-2002, 10:21 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by alek0:
<strong>I disagree with that. Diversity of life has value in itself regardless of whether there are any humans to observe it.</strong>
But you cannot objectively prove that, and there are many who value their family over the existence of an obscure species of moth. I respect their values as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by alek0:
<strong>As for shortening the lifespan, do you really think that biosphere consisting only of humans and species which are directly useful to them would be very stable?</strong>
I might like to think not, but the evidence suggests that it can be quite stable. Europe, Australia, North America have only a very small fraction of their species as compared with a few hundred years ago, and yet their macro ecosystems are quite stable.
echidna is offline  
Old 02-18-2002, 10:50 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by cricket:
<strong>"What do I say to" them? Why would anyone even speak to them? </strong>
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Australia culls kangaroos because they are a pest, and yet there are those who find this abhorrent because they are so cute and cuddly. North-western Vietnamese eat dogs and cats which we find abhorrent because we keep them as pets. Muslims find both abhorrent because dogs are unclean animals. And some of my friends couldn’t be dragged out of the city with wild horses. But in the end there are few beliefs for which I can persecute or ostracise anyone for holding, when my own are so strange and illogical.

Quote:
Originally posted by cricket:
<strong>"It is a simple logical truth that, short of mass emigration into space, with rockets taking off at the rate of several million per second, uncontrolled birth-rates are bound to lead to horribly increased death-rates. It is hard to believe that this simple truth is not understood by those leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods. They express a preference for `natural' methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation." </strong>
I think Dawkins is a little over the top here. The last sentence implies that large birth rates automatically create mass starvation. This is simply not true in the history of many OECD countries which have histories of equally high birth rates. High birth and death rates often go hand in hand but it is not so easy to say which is causal to the other. It also ignores that there are ways to prevent mass starvation.

Is there any famine today, which we do not have the food to feed ?

Really, as an optimist I see 9 billion as not a bad cap to the world population. Given our incredibly inefficient food production and distribution techniques today, it seems quite possible to feed this peak before the inevitable decline begins occurring.
echidna is offline  
Old 02-18-2002, 11:04 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,832
Post

In fact, sticking with the food theme, and my unfashionable optimism, let me remind that a high proportion of famines are politically caused.

We interpret this as a natural shortage of food. The Irish Potato Famine, the Ukrainian famine, the Ethiopian famine, these are deliberate means by which people have been politically controlled. Behind the scenes of desperate hunger, we often forget the political causes of famine.

Many countries (Mongolia and Malaysia spring to mind) have strong national policies of urbanisation. Governments and organisations know that by too easily supporting people in crisis, the significant social shifts necessary for longterm prosperity will not happen.
echidna is offline  
Old 02-18-2002, 11:35 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: India
Posts: 2,340
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by Polly Flinders:
Rhea, most of the problems that are being blamed on overpopulation are actually a result of underdevelopment.
Sure. But now that the population is at this dangerous level, we have to resort to some interim drastic measures.
I dont deny that education and women's liberalisation will solve these problems long term. However, in the interim, its necessary to curb the already exploding population.

Quote:
Our stone age ancestors had no problems with overpopulation. Their numbers were not more than a few thousand, but that didn't improve their standard of living. Every day was a struggle for them. Their infant mortality rate would have made modern Africa look like paradise by comparison. Eventually, after millenia of barely surviving, they discovered agriculture, then civilization. The success of these ways of life caused population increase. Be thankful, Rhea, don't complain because you and billions of others have a chance to survive in today's world.
So ?
Does that justify us breeding indiscrimnately so that noone survives tomorrow's world ?!

- Sivakami.

[ February 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>
Ms. Siv is offline  
Old 02-18-2002, 11:38 PM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: India
Posts: 2,340
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by cricket:
<strong>

"It is a simple logical truth that, short of mass emigration into space, with rockets taking off at the rate of several million per second, uncontrolled birth-rates are bound to lead to horribly increased death-rates. It is hard to believe that this simple truth is not understood by those leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods. They express a preference for `natural' methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation."

-- ~Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene</strong>
Way to go, Cricket. A very apt post.
If we dont take control of our growth rates, nature will, in her own brutal way.

- Sivakami.
Ms. Siv is offline  
Old 02-19-2002, 07:02 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Recluse
Posts: 9,040
Post

Quote:
echidna:
there are many who value their family over the existence of an obscure species of moth. I respect their values as well.
I'm confused. You don't appear to be valuing it "as well". You appear to value it MORE. Plaese correct me if I have misinterpreted, it is certainly possible.

But the theme seems to be, the city-dwellers win. There is no population problem. It doesn't matter that someone values an obscure moth, their standards are subsumed by the city dwellers who need th space.

And my argument is, if we value everyone's ideal, then we MUST leave some spaces untounched, unpopulated, unlittered, unbuilt. Otherwise we are NOT respecting their values "as well". Hence, all of their population & food capacity calculations, which seem to be the only thing that matters to them, MUST take out all of the land belonging to those who feel differently.

Don't you think?
Rhea is offline  
Old 02-19-2002, 09:37 AM   #29
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 75
Post

Rhea, you asked me what my limit would be on the issue of population. I honestly cannot answer that question because I don't know what future technologies will be capable of. If space travel develops and our environment becomes the solar system or the galaxy instead of earth, I'd say no limit. Otherwise, the limit would be when human suffering becomes much worse and the cause is proven to be overpopulation rather than underdevelopment. I don't think we've reached that stage yet.
Polly Flinders is offline  
Old 02-19-2002, 10:11 AM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Recluse
Posts: 9,040
Post

Polly, you appear to be saying that there is absolutely nothing on this earth that matters or is of value beyond human lives.

There is no value in showing beautiful things to children. No value in sharing resources with other natural things...

You do not mention anything at all expect humans and the resources needed to sustain them. I find this very interesting, and very foreign.

Do you ever like to look out a window? Is it okay with you if all windows go away because there is no room for them anymore?

Just curious. I find that POV to be very, very foreign to me.

But more to the point, I am surprised when people think I should adopt it for some reason... Like them not wanting to make any sacrifices to respect the desires of others to value something besides human existance with no (absolutely no) comment on quality of life.


Curious to me!
Rhea is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:19 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.