The Moral Imperative
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46488
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
I split off the discussion about reasons for warring on the Taliban into Lasto. Please stick to discussing general philosophical issues in this forum, not current events or politics.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
- TheEllipticalDisillusion
- Insolent Pup
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:26 am
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Cull in the sense of killing living people, or allowing them to die when we could prevent it? If so, definitely no.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- TheEllipticalDisillusion
- Insolent Pup
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:26 am
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Both, most definitely.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- TheEllipticalDisillusion
- Insolent Pup
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:26 am
Okay, just checking. I wasn't sure from your previous post.
Is there a moral fix to overpopulation? We're definitely going to have to deal with it soon. War and disease is usually the great equalizer, so we either succumb some sort of massive influenza or the third world war, then we'll have our population culled, but I don't think either are moral choices. Not even close.
Is there a moral fix to overpopulation? We're definitely going to have to deal with it soon. War and disease is usually the great equalizer, so we either succumb some sort of massive influenza or the third world war, then we'll have our population culled, but I don't think either are moral choices. Not even close.
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Reducing the birth rate seems like the only real choice to me—doing it without coercion, by giving women the power to limit how many children they have, and offering them education, which motivates them to delay marriage and childbearing. It also motivates them to have fewer children so the children can be educated; educated mothers value schooling and want it for their children, girls and boys.
Anywhere birth control and education have both become available to women, the birth rate has fallen. Populations are getting more urban, so the old reasons for wanting lots of children have become reasons for wanting fewer. And anyway I'm not sure how excited women have really been, historically, about having babies without limit until their bodies give out or they die.
Anywhere birth control and education have both become available to women, the birth rate has fallen. Populations are getting more urban, so the old reasons for wanting lots of children have become reasons for wanting fewer. And anyway I'm not sure how excited women have really been, historically, about having babies without limit until their bodies give out or they die.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Shouldn't that be an "and?"until their bodies give out or they die.
In regards to the Aztecs: historically different rules have always applied for individuals within a society, and for the group or its agents. Soldiers and police are expected to do things random individuals are forbidden from doing, specifically, killing when necessary. If you have a system where it's deemed necessary to kill for religious reasons, it only follows that applies to the sacrificers too.
Did you mean that starting a war or deliberately spreading a flu in order to cut population would be immoral?TED wrote:Is there a moral fix to overpopulation? We're definitely going to have to deal with it soon. War and disease is usually the great equalizer, so we either succumb some sort of massive influenza or the third world war, then we'll have our population culled, but I don't think either are moral choices.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
In fact, advanced economies deal with overpopulation systemically and thus 'voluntarily', simply because rearing children gets more and more expensive. Most of Western Europe today has a birthrate well below replacement, in some countries as low as 1.4/woman. In the US it's about 1.9; in other words our population is only growing through immigration.
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Of course. Why would you think I would accept such a repellent idea?solicitr wrote:Prim, does that apply to denying healthcare to the elderly if a procedure would cost more than $X per Quality Adjusted Life-Year remaining?
After enough babies, a woman can lose her ability to conceive by hemorrhaging and needing an emergency hysterectomy, or by getting an STD that scars her fallopian tubes, or by developing a fistula that makes sex impossible. If she can get some medical care she'll survive, but she won't have any more children.axordil wrote:Shouldn't that be an "and?"until their bodies give out or they die.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Cerin, I think TED was referring to the 'let nature take its course' approach, in which you wait for an epidemic or war to reduce population.
I think that the world population responds directly to food production - if we produce more food, we can feed more mouths. If we don't...the population does not grow very much. Drought and famine play a significant role in this, as well.
But yes, disease and war have traditionally nipped growing populations before they got exponential, and will likely continue to have an effect regardless of choices we make. After all, it's not like overpopulation is what causes an epidemic, per se. AIDS is decimating Africa, and it's not just striking the cities or 'crowded' areas.
Cultures that insist on taking their population below replacement levels will die out. (Of course, there is a question of how much immigrants are assimilated into a culture.) So, ironically, it's the groups who don't subscribe to the idea of reducing the population voluntarily who will be left. This suggests that this particular moral dilemma isn't going to go away any time soon.
I think that the world population responds directly to food production - if we produce more food, we can feed more mouths. If we don't...the population does not grow very much. Drought and famine play a significant role in this, as well.
But yes, disease and war have traditionally nipped growing populations before they got exponential, and will likely continue to have an effect regardless of choices we make. After all, it's not like overpopulation is what causes an epidemic, per se. AIDS is decimating Africa, and it's not just striking the cities or 'crowded' areas.
Cultures that insist on taking their population below replacement levels will die out. (Of course, there is a question of how much immigrants are assimilated into a culture.) So, ironically, it's the groups who don't subscribe to the idea of reducing the population voluntarily who will be left. This suggests that this particular moral dilemma isn't going to go away any time soon.
- Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
No bill contains such an idea.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
- solicitr
- Posts: 3728
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
- Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat
You might want to Google "Federal Coordinating Council for
Comparative Effectiveness Research" (passed as part of the 'Stimulus'), as well as Britain's "National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness". And the acronym QALY (Quality Adjusted Life-Year).
Comparative Effectiveness Research" (passed as part of the 'Stimulus'), as well as Britain's "National Institute for Comparative Effectiveness". And the acronym QALY (Quality Adjusted Life-Year).
Last edited by solicitr on Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46488
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Cost is a part of it, I am sure, but poverty never stopped people from having children, quite the opposite. In the developed countries, most women are free to weigh the impact of another pregnancy on their health, as well as on other priorities in their life. And most choose to limit the number of children they will have. In other parts of the world - heck, in our own - women either lack the means to make that choice possible or are prevented from making it. The result is obvious.solicitr wrote:In fact, advanced economies deal with overpopulation systemically and thus 'voluntarily', simply because rearing children gets more and more expensive. Most of Western Europe today has a birthrate well below replacement, in some countries as low as 1.4/woman. In the US it's about 1.9; in other words our population is only growing through immigration.
Edit: x-posted with V. I removed the second part of my post since due to V's request soli cannot respond in thread.
Last edited by Frelga on Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Thanks, Mith. If you deliberately decided to take no intervening action in anticipation that war and epidemic would occur, and then when they did occur, took no steps to mitigate the death tolls, I guess I can see where that would be viewed as an immoral choice. But the notion that either (all) war (regardless of circumstances) or a flu bug could in themselves be viewed as either immoral or a choice seemed a bit odd l to me.MithLuin wrote:Cerin, I think TED was referring to the 'let nature take its course' approach, in which you wait for an epidemic or war to reduce population.
edit to correctly attribute quote and explain edit
Last edited by Cerin on Wed Nov 11, 2009 8:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Avatar photo by Richard Lykes, used with permission.