alek0

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?

Pomp

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.

echidna

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Ms. Siv

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.

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

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.

Rhea

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?

Polly Flinders

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.

Rhea

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!