There is neither a raised finger in the text I produced, nor is there talk or thinking of "evil", and the assumed bashing of the US or the West for ideologic reasons simply is Haplo's imagination. The argument is that we do not seal our doom because we are stupid or evil but that we have resonable, rational arguments for doing that. Which means that "ratio" and "reason" are no terms that are a desirable quality in themselves, but more of a tool that needs supplementing by other, additonal qualities that add orientation and intention to it. The time-scale also plays a role: we can have rational short-termed interest - that neverthelss are in threatening violation of not less (or even more) important long-termed interests.
If I really carry on with this text, i plan to spend some time looking at these things, and terms like egoism, altruism, agape, solidarity, rationality, reason, responsibility. The meaning of these terms is very context-sensitive and often not at all as obvious as popular - not to mention populist - language usage suggests.
As on population size, there is the environmental-physical-biological argument of that we are too many people, and the ethical demand that we just cannot commit genocide or sit still when millions get killed. Obviously we do the latter, but we take fire from moral arguments over that, and rightly so. What is there that needs further explanation? I often said that nature will take care of too huge population sizes the hard way (disasters, diseases, war), but from a human-moral perspective this correction towards more desirable population sizes cannot be enthusiastically welcomed by us rich "stinkers" living in wealth and comfort and security, I hope this is self-explanatory for everybody.
I also repeatedly, in different threads, gave an estimation that I consider the carrying capacity of this planet, to support human life on a general material basis not as excessive as today's Western standards, but also not on a basis so low that we would consider it to be poverty from a Western perspective, to be in the range of around 1 - 1.5 billion, if we should consume not more resources than what nature can replace within a timeframe relevant for man, and without polluting the environment so much that the total pollution level remains relatively stable instead of constantly growing. If you will a reduction of global population to that level, then you talk about the death of
6 billion people!
Be careful to make such an argument thoughtlessly and without moral reflection. The biologic and physical reality is one thing, but we humans also have ethical concerns on our mind, and right so.
Interestingly, two days ago I linked to an interview with Dennis Meadows,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...666175,00.html
who mentioned comparable estimations.
Quote:
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is it possible to have 9 billion people on the planet?
Meadows: No. Even 7 billion is too much -- at least if they are all to have an appropriate standard of living. If you think it is acceptable to have a small elite that enjoys a decent lifestyle and a large majority that is excluded from that, then the Earth can probably sustain 5 to 6 billion people. If you want everyone to have the full potential of mobility, adequate food and self-development, then it is 1 or 2 billion.
|
Over the years I randomly stumbled over other estimations in that range as well. 1- 1.5 billion I see as a realistic and therefore: desirable mark, in case of doubt better the lower mark. But if somebody now says "Okay, let's start with letting them die!", then my only reply is "Fine. You first, please."
You see, this conflict between realistic need and moral demand is just part of our global dilemma, and as long as you don't get 6 billion volunteers to commit collective suicide, I do not see how to solve it.
the trick to solve it would have been: to let things never detoriate that much in the past. now it seems to be too late.