When I was teaching out east some years ago, I noted a Philadelphia Inquirer piece on the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. This organization, firmly in the grip of zero-sum anti-humanist environmentalism, was calling for the elimination of human beings by unspecified means.
I expect that VHEMT’s members are no longer with us, but somehow the desire to end the human species has survived and pops up in a Peter Singer piece at the New York Times site: “Should This Be the Last Generation?”
In the article, Princeton philosopher Singer asks us to consider sterilizing ourselves. Bringing no additional children into the world would improve things since (a) we are hurting the environment, and (b) life sucks anyways.
During his career, Peter Singer has always exhibited a great ability to take zero-sum thinking to its reductio ad absurdum limits. But since he accepts the premise firmly, he doesn’t see the absurdity as such (despite his tacked-on compromise conclusion in the NYT piece.)
Singer’s “life sucks” attitude is, as he points out, a re-statement of Arthur Schopenhauer’s strong pessimism. Reality, Schopenhauer wrote in The World as Will and Representation, is a “world of constantly needy creatures who continue for a time merely by devouring one another, pass their existence in anxiety and want, and often endure terrible affliction, until they fall at last into the arms of death” (p. 349). And more: “we have not to be pleased but rather sorry about the existence of the world, that its non-existence would be preferable to its existence” (p. 576). As for mankind: “nothing else can be stated as the aim of our existence except the knowledge that it would be better for us not to exist” (p. 605).
In his piece, Singer also mentions David Benatar, whom I discussed briefly two years ago in my “Worth Reading” for January 18, 2008:
‘A recent extreme anti-humanist manifesto published by Oxford University Press—David Benatar’s Better Never To Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence: “David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one’s life make one’s life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence. … The author then argues for the ‘anti-natal’ view—that it is always wrong to have children—and he shows that combining the anti-natal view with common pro-choice views about foetal moral status yield a ‘pro-death’ view about abortion (at the earlier stages of gestation). Anti-natalism also implies that it would be better if humanity became extinct.”’
Philosophically, Singer’s thinking rests on three beliefs:
1. Human beings are net destroyers (rather than net creators).
2. Human beings experience life in net-negative terms (rather than net-positive).
3. Humans should be selfless and sacrifice the lesser value of their own lives for the greater value of other beings (rather than pursue happiness).
Premise one is the standard Malthusian premise that many environmentalists and other doomsters find so seductive; the antidote is Julian Simon‘s great work. Premise three is a strong form of altruistic collectivism; the antidotes are the life-affirming philosophies, especially, in my judgment, those of Aristotle and Rand. And premise two is will-to-nothingness pessimism; but there is no known antidote once that poison has taken hold.
In his Lysis, Plato has Socrates say: “I think you’re right, Lysis, to say that if we were looking at things the right way, we wouldn’t be so far off course. Let’s not go in that direction any longer” (Lysis 213e).
Despite what the Philadelphia Inquirer printed in 1991, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement has always specified the means to achieve our extinction: voluntarily not breeding. I guess it’s too late to ask them for a correction.
I’d like to address the three “beliefs” attributed to Singer, in case he doesn’t read this and comment on his own.
“Human beings are net destroyers (rather than net creators).”
Matter and energy can’t be destroyed or created, so it’s our converting of them from one form to another that’s causing problems for Earth’s biosphere. We convert wildlife habitat to human habitat, and we convert living matter into dead matter for our uses. Other species behave similarly, but the scale of our activities causes us to be net “destroyers” of natural ecosystems and net “creators” of artificial ecosystems with minimal biodiversity. A quick look around us verifies this.
“Human beings experience life in net-negative terms (rather than net-positive).”
Objectively, this is true for between one third and one half of humanity: we needn’t ask the destitute if they’re having a positive experience. For the rest of us, whether our lives are positive or negative depends on our subjective evaluation. Most of us feel the good outweighs the bad, or we at least tell ourselves that to avoid depression. Unfortunately, many are not able to achieve this delusion.
However, the life experience of existing human beings isn’t exactly what anti-natalists like Benatar and Singer are concerned about. How likely is it that the human we create today will have a net positive experience? Analysis of our vital life support systems, without the fantasy of future technological magic, reveals it’s probable their life will not be one we would sentence them to “in cold blood” as Schopenhauer puts it.
“Humans should be selfless and sacrifice the lesser value of their own lives for the greater value of other beings (rather than pursue happiness).”
Foregoing procreation doesn’t require sacrificing our lives nor our pursuit of happiness, so this isn’t relevant to Singer’s anti-natalist view. It does, in a sense, relate to the VHEMT concept.
A prime motivation for most of us VHEMT Volunteers is the “greater value” of Earth’s entire biosphere over the “lesser value” one species. This one species, Homo sapiens, is causing the loss of so many other species that its voluntary extinction would be invaluable to preserving biodiversity.
Excellent rebuttal… which proves, furthermore, that Mr.Hicks is also wrong about another of his suppositions: VHEMT is still very much around.
Some questions about the comments of Les U. Knight:
“We convert wildlife habitat to human habitat, and we convert living matter into dead matter for our uses. Other species behave similarly, but the scale of our activities causes us to be net “destroyers” of natural ecosystems and net “creators” of artificial ecosystems with minimal biodiversity. A quick look around us verifies this.”
And this is “bad” because…? Exactly who or what is is “bad” for?
““Human beings experience life in net-negative terms (rather than net-positive).”
Objectively, this is true for between one third and one half of humanity: we needn’t ask the destitute if they’re having a positive experience. For the rest of us, whether our lives are positive or negative depends on our subjective evaluation.”
In fact, the number of poor and destitute people was over 90% for most of human history. The last 100 years have been much better. In the last 20 years, over 100 million people in India and 300 million in China were raised out of poverty. And since judging whether or not our lives are positive or negative depends on “our subjective evaluation”, doesn’t that mean the destitute can still be happy?
“Most of us feel the good outweighs the bad, or we at least tell ourselves that to avoid depression. Unfortunately, many are not able to achieve this delusion.”
Claimed but not demonstrated. What is the evidence that feeling the good outweighs the bad is a “delusion?”
“How likely is it that the human we create today will have a net positive experience? Analysis of our vital life support systems, without the fantasy of future technological magic, reveals it’s probable their life will not be one we would sentence them to “in cold blood” as Schopenhauer puts it.”
People have been predicting this ever since Malthus (if not before). The opposite has happened.
“A prime motivation for most of us VHEMT Volunteers is the “greater value” of Earth’s entire biosphere over the “lesser value” one species. This one species, Homo sapiens, is causing the loss of so many other species that its voluntary extinction would be invaluable to preserving biodiversity.”
Please demonstrate that the value of the Earth’s entire biosphere is a “greater value. And “value” to whom, exactly? And for what?
Thank you for your questions, Bob.
>And this is “bad” because…? Exactly who or what is is “bad” for?In fact, the number of poor and destitute people was over 90% for most of human history.The last 100 years have been much better. In the last 20 years, over 100 million people in India and 300 million in China were raised out of poverty.And since judging whether or not our lives are positive or negative depends on “our subjective evaluation”, doesn’t that mean the destitute can still be happy?Claimed but not demonstrated. What is the evidence that feeling the good outweighs the bad is a “delusion?”People have been predicting this [nasty future] ever since Malthus (if not before). The opposite has happened.Please demonstrate that the value of the Earth’s entire biosphere is a “greater value. And “value” to whom, exactly? And for what?<
Our whole bodies are more valuable than our big toe. We can live without a big toe, but our big toe can’t live without our body. Likewise, the biosphere can get along without us but we can’t live without it.
Sorry about the formatting glitch in the above. I don’t see a way to delete it so I’ll try again:
Thank you for your questions, Bob.
You asked: And this is “bad” because…? Exactly who or what is is “bad” for?
Turning a viable natural ecosystem into human habitat is bad for all the life forms which used to live there, and in the long run it’s bad for us because we need the life support services which ecosystems provide.
“In fact, the number of poor and destitute people was over 90% for most of human history.”
I’ll take your word for it, but there are more hungry and destitute people today than our total population size from our emergence as Homo sapiens until 1800, when we reached one billion.
“The last 100 years have been much better. In the last 20 years, over 100 million people in India and 300 million in China were raised out of poverty.”
They’ve got a lot of people to work with. Raising people out of poverty benefits them and all of society, and efforts need to be continued. This would be easier with fewer people. China’s success is due to a large degree because they have 400 million fewer than they would without their “one child” policy.
There’s a huge environmental cost to improving standards of living, which could be ameliorated by improving birth rates.
“And since judging whether or not our lives are positive or negative depends on “our subjective evaluation”, doesn’t that mean the destitute can still be happy?”
No.
I wrote: “Most of us feel the good outweighs the bad, or we at least tell ourselves that to avoid depression. Unfortunately, many are not able to achieve this delusion.”
And you replied: “Claimed but not demonstrated. What is the evidence that feeling the good outweighs the bad is a “delusion?””
It’s a little hard to prove, huh? Like a list I read of things to watch for if your child might be using drugs: “A false sense of well-being.” Maybe the amount of pharmaceuticals prescribed for depression, demonstrates my dubious allusion, but I’ll withdraw it nonetheless.
“People have been predicting this [nasty future] ever since Malthus (if not before). The opposite has happened.”
People have made erroneous predictions in the past, but that doesn’t mean we can never extrapolate current trends into the future. If we keep going where we’re going, we’ll most likely get there. We need to consider the probabilities of changes to these trends as well.
Data are available for topsoil loss, desertification, diminishing biodiversity, aquifer depletion and glacier retreats, fish stock collapse and so on. Anyone can use the data and make judgments about the likelihood of our changing the trajectory of these critical factors.
From my perspective, there’s not a high enough degree of probability that the world will be a place I’d want to sentence a loved one to life in. Others may figure otherwise. I think it’s important to consider the realities of the situation we and the biosphere are in rather than mindlessly continuing to breed like there’s no day after tomorrow.
“Please demonstrate that the value of the Earth’s entire biosphere is a “greater value. And “value” to whom, exactly? And for what?”
Our whole bodies are more valuable than our big toe. We can live without a big toe, but our big toe can’t live without our body. Likewise, the biosphere can get along without us but we can’t live without it.
Les – Thank you for your questions, Bob.
You asked: And this is “bad” because…? Exactly who or what is is “bad” for?
Turning a viable natural ecosystem into human habitat is bad for all the life forms which used to live there, and in the long run it’s bad for us because we need the life support services which ecosystems provide.
Bob – And thanks for your response. Yes, BAD FOR US. That is the proper criterion. Bad for other life forms? Would you really object if the parasite that causes malaria were rendered extinct?
I also said:“In fact, the number of poor and destitute people was over 90% for most of human history.” Your response was:
Les – I’ll take your word for it, but there are more hungry and destitute people today than our total population size from our emergence as Homo sapiens until 1800, when we reached one billion.
Bob – True but not relevant. The proper standard is the PROPORTION of people who are poor. That proportion has been steadily declining since the 19th century. In addition, “poor” people today in the industrialized countries have more conveniences than even the richest people possessed as recently as 200 years ago.
I also said: “The last 100 years have been much better. In the last 20 years, over 100 million people in India and 300 million in China were raised out of poverty.” You responded:
Les – They’ve got a lot of people to work with. Raising people out of poverty benefits them and all of society, and efforts need to be continued.
Bob – Well we agree here.
Les – This would be easier with fewer people. China’s success is due to a large degree because they have 400 million fewer than they would without their “one child” policy.
Bob – “Large degree?” I don’t know how that could be estimated. All I know is that those people were raised out of poverty after free market economic reforms were instituted. And then there is India, which has raised 100 million people out of poverty WITHOUT having a one child per family policy.
Les – There’s a huge environmental cost to improving standards of living, which could be ameliorated by improving birth rates.
YES! But so far what has been the most effective way to reduce birth rates? Economic prosperity. As people become richer, they tend to have fewer children. This has been true for the USA, Europe, and Japan.
Therefore to reduce the birth rate, we should favor economic policies that produce prosperity. That way we will have fewer children and more money and free time to enjoy it.
More later. I have to get back to work.
Sorry to butt in, but the debate is interesting.
Bob, you said: “Yes, BAD FOR US. That is the proper criterion. Bad for other life forms? Would you really object if the parasite that causes malaria were rendered extinct?”
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but I don’t quite follow the logic here. Are you comparing an incredibly rich and complex biosphere that has taken aeons to evolve, and which comprises species who have mostly been around far longer than us, to a disease-carrying parasite? Come to think of it, it is a rather good comparison… particularly if applied to the human species.
And why is admitting it would be bad for us the only ‘proper criterium’? Is it not ‘proper’ to care about the existence of other life-forms, in and of themselves, independently from their utilitarian value? For that matter, you shouldn’t care about the hundreds of millions of destitute Chinese and Indians, since they add no value to your individual life.
You also said: “And then there is India, which has raised 100 million people out of poverty WITHOUT having a one child per family policy.”
True. But have you thought how 100 million more people with access to modern commodities will put further strain on the country’s dwindling natural resources?
When it comes to rising demands in a finite world, it’s not just proportion that matters, but sheer numbers.
Hi Nadia,
You wrote:
Nadia – And why is admitting it would be bad for us the only ‘proper criterium’? Is it not ‘proper’ to care about the existence of other life-forms, in and of themselves, independently from their utilitarian value?[/quote]
Bob – Sorry but I don’t see why it is proper to care about the existence of any other life-forms in and of themselves. Could you explain why it is proper?
Nadia – For that matter, you shouldn’t care about the hundreds of millions of destitute Chinese and Indians, since they add no value to your individual life.[/quote]
Yes I should. Their conscious actions can directly affect me. Maybe one of them will invent something useful or write a symphony that I like.
Nadia – You also said: “And then there is India, which has raised 100 million people out of poverty WITHOUT having a one child per family policy.”
True. But have you thought how 100 million more people with access to modern commodities will put further strain on the country’s dwindling natural resources?
When it comes to rising demands in a finite world, it’s not just proportion that matters, but sheer numbers.
Bob – So you would rather see them remain poor and destitute? Once again, ever since Malthus (if not before) people have been talking about impending disasters. Paul Erlich was the latest one. None of his catastrophe scenarios have come to pass. There have been technological breakthroughs that have actually made us better off.
Yes, eventually we will reach the limit of our resources, but we don’t seem to be anywhere near that yet.
There is one disaster that does seem to be upon us, however. Governments all over the world seem to be running out of money. In the USA, 48 out of the 50 states are broke. The federal government is over $13 trillion in debt. Greece is broke. Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and the UK are not too far behind. Now there is an example of excessive spending and wasting resources.
Bob, you wrote: “Their conscious actions can directly affect me. Maybe one of them will invent something useful or write a symphony that I like.”
Well then, by this utilitarian view, you should be willing to care about the biosphere because it is what ultimately lends existence to the eventual Chinese or Indians who may invent something useful for you or write a symphony able to touch your heart.
The problem with such philosophy is that were the time to come when no Chinese or Indians invent or create anything of any use to you at all, they would become disposable.
Utilitarianism can only get us so far. As humans, we are capable of higher moral thinking. Let’s use it.
You also wrote: “Yes, eventually we will reach the limit of our resources, but we don’t seem to be anywhere near that yet.”
Are we just going to go forth then, multiply, and wait for this limit to ‘eventually’ knock us on the head? As humans, we are capable of foresight. Let’s use it.
Nadia – Bob, you wrote: “Their conscious actions can directly affect me. Maybe one of them will invent something useful or write a symphony that I like.”
Well then, by this utilitarian view, you should be willing to care about the biosphere because it is what ultimately lends existence to the eventual Chinese or Indians who may invent something useful for you or write a symphony able to touch your heart.
Bob – Where did I say I didn’t care about the biosphere? Of course I do. People need the biosphere. That’s why it is valuable
Nadia – The problem with such philosophy is that were the time to come when no Chinese or Indians invent or create anything of any use to you at all, they would become disposable.
Bob – Since humans always have the potential to create, that time will never come.
Nadia – Utilitarianism can only get us so far. As humans, we are capable of higher moral thinking. Let’s use it.
Bob – What exactly is this “higher moral thinking?” Could you please spell it out?
Nadia – You also wrote: “Yes, eventually we will reach the limit of our resources, but we don’t seem to be anywhere near that yet.”
Are we just going to go forth then, multiply, and wait for this limit to ‘eventually’ knock us on the head? As humans, we are capable of foresight. Let’s use it.
Bob – That I agree with. What I do not agree with are the doomsday scenarios that claim Judgment Day is just around the corner .
Les – People have made erroneous predictions in the past, but that doesn’t mean we can never extrapolate current trends into the future. If we keep going where we’re going, we’ll most likely get there. We need to consider the probabilities of changes to these trends as well.
Bob – Extrapolation of trends is always dangerous. The fact that someone has managed to drive drunk a dozen times without an accident does not mean they can do it another dozen times without an accident. As for changes to trends, technological advances have managed to upset doomsday scenarios since Malthus.
Les – Data are available for topsoil loss, desertification, diminishing biodiversity, aquifer depletion and glacier retreats, fish stock collapse and so on. Anyone can use the data and make judgments about the likelihood of our changing the trajectory of these critical factors.
Bob – Now that is a proper basis for a scientific analysis. But how accurate are these numbers and what exactly do they tell us?
Les – From my perspective, there’s not a high enough degree of probability that the world will be a place I’d want to sentence a loved one to life in. Others may figure otherwise.
Bob – Despite all of the problems, the world is in better shape now than during any century prior to 1900. We live longer, are healthier, and have to work less.
Les – I think it’s important to consider the realities of the situation we and the biosphere are in rather than mindlessly continuing to breed like there’s no day after tomorrow.
Bob – Prosperous people breed less. That has been the experience in Europe, Japan, and North America.
Les – “Please demonstrate that the value of the Earth’s entire biosphere is a “greater value. And “value” to whom, exactly? And for what?”
Our whole bodies are more valuable than our big toe. We can live without a big toe, but our big toe can’t live without our body. Likewise, the biosphere can get along without us but we can’t live without it.
Bob – Our bodies are more valuable than our big toe to US. From that, you cannot logically conclude that the biosphere is more valuable to us than us.
Bob, by ‘higher moral thinking’ i simply mean that utilitarianism cannot be the sole basis for caring. If that were so, the continuance of any being would be contingent on whether or not it is still deemed useful to those who have the power to dispose of it (please abstain from bringing up rats, roaches, or any other parasite-carrying critter).
As for the doomsday scenario, I agree with you… to a point. It certainly won’t happen in a day. It doesn´t even have to happen at all, if we play our cards right. You say prosperity will stabilize the world population. Perhaps that’s true, but it’s also true that prosperity seems a less likely scenario as population continues to increase and resources to diminish.
Nadia – Bob, by ‘higher moral thinking’ i simply mean that utilitarianism cannot be the sole basis for caring. If that were so, the continuance of any being would be contingent on whether or not it is still deemed useful to those who have the power to dispose of it (please abstain from bringing up rats, roaches, or any other parasite-carrying critter).
Ok. Then what exactly do you mean by “higher than moral thinking?”
Nadia – As for the doomsday scenario, I agree with you… to a point. It certainly won’t happen in a day. It doesn´t even have to happen at all, if we play our cards right.
Bob – Exactly. Agreed. Now we have to find out what constitutes “playing our cards right.”
Nadia – You say prosperity will stabilize the world population. Perhaps that’s true, but it’s also true that prosperity seems a less likely scenario as population continues to increase and resources to diminish.
Bob – No “perhaps” about it. It has been true so far on three continents. Why do you think Europe is importing so many workers from Turkey and North Africa? Not enough European workers. Prosperity reduces birthrates.
Bob – Despite all of the problems, the world is in better shape now than during any century prior to 1900. We live longer, are healthier, and have to work less.
Les – I think this is beside the point Benatar makes and Singer puts out for discussion. Although human life may be better, it still involves too much suffering and so bring someone into existence is morally wrong. That may not be true, but an objective look at the data should make us question breeding today.
Bob – Now that is a proper basis for a scientific analysis. But how accurate are these numbers and what exactly do they tell us?
Les – There’s always a margin of error which we have to figure in. For example, estimates of topsoil loss globally range from 45 to 60 tons per hectare of farmland a year. It’s replaced at 0.5 to 1.0 ton per hectare/year. From several sources we can make our own extrapolations into the future. This is just one of many factors critical to maintaining our ever-increasing human family. It all adds up to: “From my perspective, there’s not a high enough degree of probability that the world will be a place I’d want to sentence a loved one to life in.”
It helps to have several perspectives on data. For example, the fact that wealthy countries have lower birth rates could mean that wealth causes lower birth rates. It could also mean that lower birth rates cause wealth. There could be other, more important factors, like status of women, which might be missed with a narrowly economic analysis. The lower the status of women the higher the birth rate. Raising living standards isn’t likely to improve birth rates if women have no say in childbearing.
Bob – Our bodies are more valuable than our big toe to US. From that, you cannot logically conclude that the biosphere is more valuable to us than us.
Les – The analogy isn’t intended to be “because of this fact, then this conclusion.” Understanding that because the biosphere can get along without us but we can’t live without it, it’s more valuable can be a challenge. Sometimes an analogy helps, sometimes it doesn’t.
Bob – Despite all of the problems, the world is in better shape now than during any century prior to 1900. We live longer, are healthier, and have to work less.
Les – I think this is beside the point Benatar makes and Singer puts out for discussion. Although human life may be better, it still involves too much suffering and so bring someone into existence is morally wrong. That may not be true, but an objective look at the data should make us question breeding today.
Bob – What you forget here is that there is also JOY in life. By not bringing someone into existence, you are also depriving them of JOY. In addition, there is far less to cause suffering now. Many diseases have been eliminated. We have modern conveniences to make day to day living easier. If what you say is true, it is past centuries where it would have been immoral to have children.
Bob – Now that is a proper basis for a scientific analysis. But how accurate are these numbers and what exactly do they tell us?
Les – There’s always a margin of error which we have to figure in. For example, estimates of topsoil loss globally range from 45 to 60 tons per hectare of farmland a year. It’s replaced at 0.5 to 1.0 ton per hectare/year. From several sources we can make our own extrapolations into the future. This is just one of many factors critical to maintaining our ever-increasing human family. It all adds up to: “From my perspective, there’s not a high enough degree of probability that the world will be a place I’d want to sentence a loved one to life in.”
Bob – Don’t neglect scientific and technological advances. A few decades ago, the agricultural picture also looked grim. Then came the Green Revolution and agricultural production went up dramatically.
Les – It helps to have several perspectives on data. For example, the fact that wealthy countries have lower birth rates could mean that wealth causes lower birth rates. It could also mean that lower birth rates cause wealth.
Bob – No. The data clearly shows that the wealth comes first.
Les – There could be other, more important factors, like status of women, which might be missed with a narrowly economic analysis. The lower the status of women the higher the birth rate. Raising living standards isn’t likely to improve birth rates if women have no say in childbearing.
Bob – Except that the birthrate has always been lower for the prosperous. That goes way back, far before the woman’s movement.
Bob – Our bodies are more valuable than our big toe to US. From that, you cannot logically conclude that the biosphere is more valuable to us than us.
Les – The analogy isn’t intended to be “because of this fact, then this conclusion.” Understanding that because the biosphere can get along without us but we can’t live without it, it’s more valuable can be a challenge. Sometimes an analogy helps, sometimes it doesn’t.
Bob – I think that this time it doesn’t. Yes, the biosphere is extremely valuable to us, but we can have no values at all if we are not alive.
Bob – What you forget here is that there is also JOY in life. By not bringing someone into existence, you are also depriving them of JOY.
Les – You can’t deprive someone who doesn’t exist of anything. Once they exist, they may find some joy and some pain. There are no guarantees. The Green Revolution put agriculture on steroids. Short term gains are starting to diminish long term productivity.
Bob – No. The data clearly shows that the wealth comes first.
Les – I’m having a hard time finding this data, so if you have a source I’d really appreciate it. Just found an article encouraging procreation. “Historically, the nation’s birthrate has risen and fallen with the economy, plunging to record lows during the Great Depression, booming in the post-World War II years, then dipping again during the stagflation-battered early 1970s.” http://is.gd/cS2Z8
Virginia Abernethy at Vanderbuilt has found this to be true in every country she analyzed. We do need to help increase standards of living, but that won’t improve birth rates.
Bob – Yes, the biosphere is extremely valuable to us, but we can have no values at all if we are not alive.
Les – We don’t need values if we are not alive.
Bob – What you forget here is that there is also JOY in life. By not bringing someone into existence, you are also depriving them of JOY.
Les – You can’t deprive someone who doesn’t exist of anything. Once they exist, they may find some joy and some pain. There are no guarantees.
Bob – Yes, there are no guarantees. So what? Is that a reason for giving up?
Les – The Green Revolution put agriculture on steroids. Short term gains are starting to diminish long term productivity.
Bob – And millions of people are no longer starving. Would you rather they did starve?
Bob – No. The data clearly shows that the wealth comes first.
Les – I’m having a hard time finding this data, so if you have a source I’d really appreciate it.
Bob – All you have to do is look at the population data for prosperous countries in Europe, Japan, and North America. They have been trending downward for decades. That’s why they are importing labor.
Les – Just found an article encouraging procreation. “Historically, the nation’s birthrate has risen and fallen with the economy, plunging to record lows during the Great Depression, booming in the post-World War II years, then dipping again during the stagflation-battered early 1970s.” http://is.gd/cS2Z8
Bob – The Depression and WWII were aberrations. Take a look at later data. Where are the countries of Europe, North America, and Japan on this list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate
Les – Virginia Abernethy at Vanderbuilt has found this to be true in every country she analyzed. We do need to help increase standards of living, but that won’t improve birth rates.
Bob – That’s not what the statistics show. Read that link again and see where the wealthier nations place regarding the birthrate.
Bob – Yes, the biosphere is extremely valuable to us, but we can have no values at all if we are not alive.
Les – We don’t need values if we are not alive.
Bob – Exactly the point.What good does it do us to protect the environment if WE are not alive to enjoy it?
Bob – Yes, there are no guarantees. So what? Is that a reason for giving up?
Les – “Giving up” is a separate issue from choosing not to bring someone into existence.
Les – The Green Revolution put agriculture on steroids. Short term gains are starting to diminish long term productivity.
Bob – And millions of people are no longer starving. Would you rather they did starve?
Les — That’s the problem with diminished long-term productivity: with double the population existing now than at the beginning of the Green Revolution, more people are now starving — experiencing food insecurity — than before. The main architect of the Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug, warned of this.
Bob – No. The data clearly shows that the wealth comes first.
Les – I’m having a hard time finding this data, so if you have a source I’d really appreciate it.
Bob – All you have to do is look at the population data for prosperous countries in Europe, Japan, and North America. They have been trending downward for decades. That’s why they are importing labor.
Les – Sorry I wasn’t more clear about what data I can’t find. I’m looking for the data which “clearly shows that the wealth comes first.” Seems to me the Demographic Transition Theory/Model lacks empirical evidence.
Bob – The Depression and WWII were aberrations. Take a look at later data. Where are the countries of Europe, North America, and Japan on this list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_birth_rate
Les – Virginia Abernethy at Vanderbuilt has found this [increased birth rates from increased wealth] to be true in every country she analyzed. We do need to help increase standards of living, but that won’t improve birth rates.
Bob – That’s not what the statistics show. Read that link again and see where the wealthier nations place regarding the birthrate.
Les- It does appear that high birth rates cause low per capita wealth, but correlation doesn’t prove correlation.
Bob – Yes, the biosphere is extremely valuable to us, but we can have no values at all if we are not alive.
Les – We don’t need values if we are not alive.
Bob – Exactly the point.What good does it do us to protect the environment if WE are not alive to enjoy it?
Les – it does US no good. Voluntary human extinction doesn’t include our enjoyment of Earth’s biosphere after we’re gone. I wish we collectively enjoyed it while we’re here. We wouldn’t be destroying it if we did.