Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
As we all know, there's a finite amount of natural resources to go around; some of which can be renewed, and some of which cannot. Each year, more rainforest gets cut down, more farmland is built upon, more fish get removed from the sea, more oil is drawn from the ground, etc. None of these can be quickly renewed, and the more the population grows, the quicker the reserves are depleted.
Now that there are more than 6 billion people in the world, is it still morally acceptable to grow the population? At what point does it become immoral? Is it ok for us to have 10 billion? 50 billion? You've got to think that at a certain point the quality of living goes way down the toilet. There certainly aren't enough resources on earth for 10 billion people to enjoy the quality of life that we're used to in America.
Many popular religions believe that birth control is immoral. I'm more inclined to believe that having kids (i.e. more than 2 or 3) is immoral. Mandatory abortion has been discussed and even implemented in different cultures around the world. Do we do the same here, or just accept a dense population like China has?
Re: Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
I think we first need to find ways of conserving our energy and resources. Once we've taken the maximum steps toward conservation, it then becomes an issue of population control. At that point I think it would be immoral to have more children than the earth's resources can supply.
Re: Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
To utter a quote from the one hit wonder band, Harvey Danger, "Only stupid people are breeding". So yeah population control needs to to be put into full effect. The sooner the better. But it almost makes no sense to do it only in developed countries because the world would quickly by overrun by the bottom of the barrel sort o speak.
China had the right idea, although I am sure a better system could have been implemented. I think the Earth's population is estimated at 9 billion+by 2050.
Re: Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
2 children max and only allow one more children, a third, if they know he is going to be brilliant when he grows up and destroy the buggers when he is 6.
Re: Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snow
To utter a quote from the one hit wonder band, Harvey Danger, "Only stupid people are breeding". So yeah population control needs to to be put into full effect. The sooner the better. But it almost makes no sense to do it only in developed countries because the world would quickly by overrun by the bottom of the barrel sort o speak.
China had the right idea, although I am sure a better system could have been implemented. I think the Earth's population is estimated at 9 billion+by 2050.
yeah, now they have 111,000,000 more men than woman (that's a lot of wanking) and infanticide numbers that would boggle the mind
Re: Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
If we don't end up killing ourselves, the planet will take care of us eventually. It's only a matter of time. You can only increase so much before disease will wipe you out.
Re: Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
anyone here familiar with Malthus and his predictions about population growth?
for those who dont:
Population Growth is exponential.
Agricultural Growth is geometric.
therefore, humans will starve by the 20th century.
oops.. he did NOT think that one through...
but I don't blame him because he did not take into account all the different advances in his day such as new agricultural techniques and with todays foray into bioengineering, all kinds of resources can be created synthetically.
however, what is the critical density of the human population? some studies predict ~22 billion. others a smaller number.
no matter what, it is my own personal humble opinion that regardless of how well humans can sustain themselves, that it is best to be more conservative with the numbers and not plague future generations with the problems of the past.
Last edited by VCDrivesAPorscheToWork : 04-03-2007 at 12:03 PM.
Re: Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
and "morality" is merely the ideals of human conformity.
however, that itself is a subjective term. since Adamcz obviously has a disdain for Christians, I assume he is not one himself. (if I am false, sue me, I made an educated guess based on the empirical evidence presented by his posts. I write this proviso because Reppy has a tendency to bandy semantics and draw on the "technicalities" of debate when on the losing side of an argument)
therefore, his using the word "immoral" implies he derives his rules of conduct elsewhere, and therefore with different moral authorities, it becomes clear that using the word "morality" in this thread, becomes subjective and invalid... unless of course Adam had no intention of unbiased and civil discourse in the first place.
Re: Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
Quote:
however, that itself is a subjective term. since Adamcz obviously has a disdain for Christians, I assume he is not one himself. (if I am false, sue me, I made an educated guess based on the empirical evidence presented by his posts. I write this proviso because Reppy has a tendency to bandy semantics and draw on the "technicalities" of debate when on the losing side of an argument)
Wtf? When do I do that? You sure you're not thinking of GoBB? : And when have I ever lost a debate to you? I must have missed that one.
Quote:
therefore, his using the word "immoral" implies he derives his rules of conduct elsewhere, and therefore with different moral authorities, it becomes clear that using the word "morality" in this thread, becomes subjective and invalid... unless of course Adam had no intention of unbiased and civil discourse in the first place.
It's clear that you derive "morals" from the Bible and view any other "morals" as heretical. You cite no evidence as to why adamcz's "morals" are inferior or wrong, except that they are different from your accepted Biblical "morals". Why is it OK to accept your "morals" from the Bible, but not scientific fact? If you're going to say that any sort of moral conduct that occurs outside of the Bible is invalid, why not science, too?
If I derived from my "morals" from Greek legends, could I easily dismiss your views of morality? After all, Zeus was around first.
According to the Bible, it's perfectly fine to kill apostates, homosexuals and "witches". Is that "moral"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VCDrivesAPorscheToWork
and "morality" is merely the ideals of human conformity.
The Bible was written by humans.
"Morality" has evolved over time. In fact, you can even see this in the Bible: "Eye for an eye" became "turn the other cheek".
By the way, are you prepared as an American to make sacrifices on how you live so the Earth can support more humans? For some reason, I doubt it.
Re: Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
The lifestyle sacrafice problem is an interesting one. How much am I willing to sacrafice? I know for sure that I am willing to pay extra for the most fuel efficient car, and I've replaced all my lightbulbs by now. I'll have just one kid, and live in a small house no matter how much money I have.
But there's always more you could do. What if I found out that the electricity I burn through using my computer and big screen was causing permanent damage? (and it probably is). I can't say in all honesty that I'd be willing to give up some of the luxuries I'm used to like that. I don't like seafood so the ocean overharvesting doesn't affect me, but what if I was told I had to give up eating chicken, or had to limit myself to two small meals per day so that vegetables could be re-grown fast enough? Not sure if I would play along.
I can accuse Lebron James of building a bigger house than he needs, but if I build one that's 1,000 sq ft, somebody in Ethiopia can accuse me of the same crime.
At the end of the day, I think it's morally neccesary that you try to limit your use of resources to what you really need, or to what the planet can sustain. I think preservation of the human species (and it's way of living) should supercede any religious or cultural beliefs.
Is it moral to have more children than the earth can support?
J/K
:
I must have missed that one.
