carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/11/86)
The following comments by Wasilewsky necessitate a response. >[Discussion of Paul Ehrlich's "Nazi-like statements".] > >>Sounds like a real Nazi, doesn't he. [Carnes, ironic mode] > >Oh yes. > >The following is related by the New York Times Index (in its own >laconic style): > >"Dr. P. Ehrlich says U.S. might resort to addition of temporary >sterility drug to food shipped to foreign countries or their water >supply with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps >by lottery, speech to U.S. Commission for UNESCO conference" >(Source for both quotes: *Imperialism and the Pill* by Tom Bethell, >in *National Review*, March 14, 1986). *The Race Bomb*, coauthored by Paul Ehrlich and Shirley Feldman, consists of detailed refutations of the allegedly scientific arguments publicized by Shockley, Jensen, and others in support of the view that there are inherited differences in "intelligence" between "races". In his writings Ehrlich (for what it's worth, his mother's name is Rosenberg) has emphasized the necessity for avoiding the focusing of population control measures on particular ethnic or minority groups or other relatively powerless groups (see any of his writings on the population problem). An important argument he adduces in favor of planned population control is that it will help to *prevent* Nazi-like regimes from arising, seeking Lebensraum for their populations, and practicing "population control" through genocide. In view of the foregoing, any attempt to associate Paul Ehrlich in any way with Nazi ideology is a despicable slander. Jan's principal error here seems to be relying on Tom Bethell as a source for anything -- Jan is, I suspect, smarter than Bethell and ought to do his own research. Bethell is clearly a busy man and has no time to read Ehrlich's actual writings, and consequently he turns to the New York Times Index. However, the Index's summary in this instance is misleading. Following are the relevant portions of the article to which it refers [NYT, Nov. 25, 1969, p. 19, by Gladwin Hill]: [Ehrlich] urged establishing a Federal Population Commission "with a large budget for propaganda," changing tax laws to discourage reproduction and instituting mandatory birth control instruction in public schools. He also urged "changing the pattern of Federal support of biomedical research...." If such steps are unavailing, he continued, the nation might resort to "the addition of a temporary sterilant to staple food, or to the water supply," with limited distribution of antidote chemicals, perhaps by lottery. Although it might seem that such a program could be started by doctoring foods sent to underdeveloped countries, he said, "the solution does not lie in that direction" because "other people already are suspicious of our motives." Rather, he suggested, the United States should stop economic aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations. Thus, according to the NY Times, he did not advocate doctoring foods sent to UDCs or adding anything to their water supply. Within the United States, the prospect of the addition of a temporary sterilant to food or water was prefaced by: "If such steps are unavailing, the nation might resort to...". That is, he presented this as a hypothetical possibility, and by implication the only justification for such measures is in the case that they are necessary to avoid a catastrophe that would be a considerably worse prospect. Ehrlich was hardly unaware of the difficult political and ethical issues this would raise (apart from the extreme unlikelihood of the discovery of a sterilant chemical that would fill the bill). In the second edition of *The Population Bomb*, which appeared in February 1971, Ehrlich wrote [pp. 130-131]: So the first task is population control at home.... One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size. Those of you who are appalled at such a suggestion can rest easy. The option isn't even open to us, since no such substance exists.... Technical problems aside, I suspect you'll agree with me that society would probably dissolve before sterilants were added to the water supply by the government. Just consider the fluoridation controversy! Some other way will have to be found. So Ehrlich did not advocate taking these measures; he merely described this proposal and implied that the situation would have to be fairly desperate, with catastrophe impending, before such steps could be seriously considered. I confess that I am unable to understand how this shows Ehrlich to be a crypto-Nazi. I also fail to see anything remotely shocking about the proposal to deny aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations. Ehrlich believes, with good reason, that merely sending food aid to countries with rapidly expanding populations is in the nature of handing out aspirin to a person who is afraid to see a doctor about his cancer, or, to put it in terms that right-wingers can understand, handing out money to "overweight welfare mamas" (Bethell's phrase) who will then have more babies to get more money to spend on TV sets and Cadillacs. In fact, the case is even stronger than these analogies suggest, because the exploding population of an underdeveloped country will eventually have serious negative effects on every inhabitant of the planet, as Ehrlich has explained in detail. The moral thing to do, he believes, is to encourage, in whatever ways we can, such countries as India to control the growth of their populations. Further, given that the amount of food aid the US can send is necessarily limited, we ought to allocate it in such a way that it will do the most good, by an application of the triage principle. Anyone with an interest in these issues owes it to him- or herself to read Garrett Hardin's seminal essay "The Tragedy of the Commons," which originally appeared in *Science* 162:1243-48, Dec. 13, 1968. The thesis of Hardin's article is that the "population problem," as conventionally conceived, has NO solution that requires a change ONLY in the techniques of the natural sciences and demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality. Here's an excerpt: Perhaps the simplest summary of this analysis of man's population problems is this: the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low population density. As the human population has increased, the commons has had to be abandoned in one aspect after another. ... Every new enclosure of the commons involves the infringement of somebody's personal liberty. ... I believe it was Hegel who said, "Freedom is the recognition of necessity." The most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding. No technical solution can rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all. At the moment, to avoid hard decisions many of us are tempted to propagandize for conscience and responsible parenthood. The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run [by natural selection], and an increase in anxiety in the short. The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon. ... Jan also writes, again relying on Bethell: >Ehrlich, a population biologist, predicted in 1970 that famine would >be "directly or indirectly responsible for 65 million of American >deaths in the decade of 1980-1989". Bethell gives no source for this alleged quotation, and I have been unable to find it in any of Ehrlich's writings. It certainly does not appear in the books he wrote around 1970, including *The Population Bomb* and *Population, Resources, Environment*, which contain extensive discussions of US demography. Those discussions seem to contradict the alleged prediction: Ehrlich's position then seems to be that in the worst possible scenario, the US *could* experience famine in the 1980's. Even if he did make this bald, unqualified prediction, one erroneous prediction does not make a poor scientist. In another article I have given evidence for Ehrlich's qualifications as a scientist, including election to the National Academy of Sciences and the respect of his colleagues. I have read Bethell's article in NR and it is a fine example of what an ideologue produces when he does not know what he is talking about. It would be great fun to read an Ehrlich reply, and I am sending a copy to the Ehrlichs, although I expect they would not think it worthwhile to send a letter to NR. Bethell professes not to understand why there was no "leftist outcry" to Paul Ehrlich's statements quoted above. But I don't understand why there *should* have been an outcry. Leftists (I say nothing of other political persuasions) are not opposed on principle to proposals to improve the lot of humanity and alleviate its suffering. The article also quotes another gem from Petr Beckmann, an *obviously* confused statement about population growth in the US, which I am holding in reserve. The attacks on Ehrlich are without foundation and come from persons who seek to discredit him by any means possible. This is neither new nor surprising. It is the usual fate of prophets who bring the message, Repent and turn aside from your ways, for the day of reckoning is at hand. As Garret Hardin wrote in *Exploring New Ethics for Survival: The Voyage of the Spaceship "Beagle"* (1972), p. 7: In ancient times absolute monarchs disemboweled messengers for less. Today we are not much different. But now the absolute monarch is "the Pee-pull." During the 1970s the Pee-pull finally got sick and tired of the apocalyptic rantings of Paul Ehrlich, and one fine night after he had given a rabble-rousing speech at the Marblehead Junior College he was tarred and feathered by the Youth for American Freedom, loaded into a cart borrowed from the town museum, and pulled to the edge of town, where he was thrown ignominiously into the Fort Mudge Memorial Dump. A great sigh of relief arose from the Pee-pull, whose patience had been taxed beyond endurance. Patriots can take only so much. Richard Carnes
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (08/14/86)
In article <543@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >...In his writings Ehrlich (for what it's worth, his >mother's name is Rosenberg) has emphasized the necessity for avoiding >the focusing of population control measures on particular ethnic or >minority groups or other relatively powerless groups (see any of his >writings on the population problem). An important argument he >adduces in favor of planned population control is that it will help >to *prevent* Nazi-like regimes from arising, seeking Lebensraum for >their populations, and practicing "population control" through >genocide. > >In view of the foregoing, any attempt to associate Paul Ehrlich in >any way with Nazi ideology is a despicable slander. You know perfectly well that I said Ehrlich used "Nazi like statements." Trying to prove I, or anyone else, said he is personally associated with the Nazi regime is simple deception on your part. Thus the maiden name of Ehrlich's mother has as much relevance here as your mother's maiden name. While it is true that neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence gurantees the right of reproduction, neither does it explicitly gurantee the right to choose your own job, your spouse, your home or any of a million other personal choices. To say that the government has a right to interfere in such a personal choice, such as the choice to have children, is abhorrent. Authoritarian governments have never had this disposition against the government controlling such decisions. The Chinese today practise forced abortions and infantcide. Other totalitarian regimes such as the Nazi's would reward women for producing as many children (cannon fodder) as possible. The view that coercive population control is a right of the state is not a view that is very compatible with a free society. >I also fail to see anything remotely shocking about the proposal to >deny aid to countries that do not try to limit their populations. >Ehrlich believes, with good reason, that merely sending food aid to >countries with rapidly expanding populations is in the nature of >handing out aspirin to a person who is afraid to see a doctor about >his cancer, or, to put it in terms that right-wingers can understand, >handing out money to "overweight welfare mamas" (Bethell's phrase) >who will then have more babies to get more money to spend on TV sets >and Cadillacs. In fact, the case is even stronger than these >analogies suggest, because the exploding population of an >underdeveloped country will eventually have serious negative effects >on every inhabitant of the planet, as Ehrlich has explained in >detail. The moral thing to do, he believes, is to encourage, in >whatever ways we can, such countries as India to control the growth >of their populations. Even today, as several people have noted when talking about the Ethiopian problem, the world produces enough food. The problem is distribution and storage. What started this entire discussion was the attack on Dr. Cohen by Mr. Ehrlich. (This is also about my only interest in this discussion.) From Mr. Ehrlich's article we found out that he is expert enough in the field of nuclear science to not only attack the integrity of all nuclear engineers but also all researchers in any related fields if need be. Dr. Cohen's survey of health physicists was dismisssed with a wave of the biologist's hand. Interested readers will remember that it was energy scholar Mr. Ehrlich who said that nuclear waste in a river caused oysters to glow. > ...During the 1970s the Pee-pull finally got sick and > tired of the apocalyptic rantings of Paul Ehrlich, and one fine night > after he had given a rabble-rousing speech at the Marblehead Junior > College he was tarred and feathered by the Youth for American > Freedom, loaded into a cart borrowed from the town museum, and pulled > to the edge of town, where he was thrown ignominiously into the Fort > Mudge Memorial Dump. If this is true it is sickening. I hope the thugs were arrested.. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/17/86)
[Michael Stein] >To say that >the government has a right to interfere in such a personal choice, >such as the choice to have children, is abhorrent. Since you do not provide any argument in support of this view, your statement is mere name-calling. Responsible people, in discussing such an important issue, will want to do more than simply label opposing views as "abhorrent". >Authoritarian governments have never had this disposition against the >government controlling such decisions. The Chinese today practise >forced abortions and infantcide. Other totalitarian regimes such as >the Nazi's would reward women for producing as many children (cannon >fodder) as possible. The view that coercive population control is a >right of the state is not a view that is very compatible with a free >society. Brilliant argument, Michael. Some bad governments do it, sometimes in bad ways, therefore it's intrinsically bad. But the view that everyone should be allowed to have as many children as they want, with no attempt to use government to influence or control the population level, is not a view that is very compatible with a good life for future generations of humanity. What alternative do you suggest? How about this one: letting the population increase until war, genocide, disease, and/or famine stop the increase. Recommended background reading for studying population control issues: Garret Hardin's essay on "The Tragedy of the Commons" and Hobbes's *Leviathan*. >Even today, as several people have noted when talking about the >Ethiopian problem, the world produces enough food. The problem is >distribution and storage. My understanding is that the world currently produces enough food to feed everyone, or nearly everyone, adequately. But the enormous problem of distributing the food to those who need it has been and will continue to be aggravated by overpopulation, in various ways. For example, overgrazing has resulted in desertification in the Sahel. An excellent introduction to the population crisis is the special section (edited by the Ehrlichs) in the April 1986 *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists*. This issue is available for $3.50 from the Bulletin at 5801 S. Kenwood, Chicago IL 60637. Here is a quote from the Ehrlichs' introductory essay: "Earth is overpopulated today by a very simple standard: humanity is able to support itself -- often none too well, at that -- only by consuming its capital. This consumption involves much more than the widely publicized depletion of stocks of fossil fuels and dispersion of other high-grade mineral resources. Much more critical are the erosion of deep, rich agricultural soils, the diminution of our fresh water supply by pollution and mismanagement of groundwater, and the loss of much of the diversity of other life-forms that share the earth with us. All these are intimately involved in providing humans with nourishment from the only significant source of income, the radiant energy of the sun, which, converted by photosynthetic plants into the energy of chemical bonds, supports essentially all life on the planet. Two crucial points must be remembered. The first is that with today's technology, humanity could not support anything like its current numbers without continually using its nonrenewable resource subsidy. The second is that while exploiting that capital subsidy, civilization is continually degrading the systems that supply its income. Consider only the accelerating extermination of other organisms, which is intimately connected with brute increase in the human population and its exploitation of the planet. Those organisms are working parts of the ecosystems that provide society with a wide variety of indispensable services, including regulation of the composition of the atmosphere, amelioration of weather, the generation and preservation of soils, the cycling of nutrients essential to agriculture and forestry, disposal of wastes, control of the vast majority of potential crop pests and carriers of human diseases, provision of food from the sea, and maintenance of a vast genetic library, from which humans have already drawn the very basis of civilization, and whose potential has barely been tapped. All of these services are directly or indirectly involved in providing necessities to humanity derived from our solar income. Ecologists standardly measure that income in terms of net primary productivity. Net primary productivity is the total amount of the energy bound each year by plants in the process of photosynthesis, minus the portion of that chemical energy that the plants themselves must use to run their own life processes. The global net primary productivity can be viewed as the basic food supply for the entire animal world, including *Homo sapiens*, as well as a major source of structural materials, fibers, medicines, and other things of importance to humanity. ... The population is now growing at a rate that, if continued, would double it in about 42 years. Even if *Homo sapiens* could persist after wiping out most of the other animals, population growth clearly would soon carry it past the limits of Earth's short-term human carrying capacity, and a population crash would ensue." I will not have any more time to read the net, but I can be reached via email. Richard Carnes
mxc@teddy.UUCP (Marc Campos) (08/19/86)
In article <549@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >[Michael Stein] >>To say that the government has a right to interfere in such a personal >>choice, such as the choice to have children, is abhorrent. > >Since you do not provide any argument in support of this view, your >statement is mere name-calling. Responsible people, in discussing >such an important issue, will want to do more than simply label >opposing views as "abhorrent". But most responsible people do not consider meddling with other peoples' lives as a reasonable alternative. It *is* abhorrent to interfere with such a personal choice because the individual's right to lead his own life is inalienable and self-justifying; it does not belong to the state. And unless you can point out solid reasons why some peoples' having children directly and forcibly harms other people, you don't have a moral case. >>Authoritarian governments have never had this disposition against the >>government controlling such decisions. The Chinese today practise >>forced abortions and infantcide... The view that coercive population >>control is a right of the state is not a view that is very compatible >>with a free society. > >Brilliant argument, Michael. Some bad governments do it, sometimes >in bad ways, therefore it's intrinsically bad. But the view that >everyone should be allowed to have as many children as they want, >with no attempt to use government to influence or control the >population level, is not a view that is very compatible with a good >life for future generations of humanity. Well, how do you propose to enforce coercive population control? Since you've already stated that the state has the moral right to control the lives of others, what's wrong with the way "bad" governments are doing it? If you concede that the state has the right to control a couple's reproductive choices, then it's a small step to say that the state has the right to force the issue with an abortion or infantcide. Your view is not very compatible with a good life for the *present* generation of humanity. Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my freedom to support ghosts of the future, especially for the dubious arguments that you've cited. Such population gloom-and-doom scenarios neglect the facts that people tend to reproduce *less* as their standard of living increases, that the Earth still has plenty of resources and can feed its inhabitants, and that this is not the only place to live in the universe. -- Marc Campos, GenRad Inc. {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!mxc Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 USA (617) 369-4400 x2336
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/20/86)
[Marc Campos] >But most responsible people do not consider meddling with other >peoples' lives as a reasonable alternative. It *is* abhorrent to >interfere with such a personal choice because the individual's right >to lead his own life is inalienable and self-justifying; it does not >belong to the state. And unless you can point out solid reasons why >some peoples' having children directly and forcibly harms other >people, you don't have a moral case. But why must having a child (an additional child) DIRECTLY and FORCIBLY harm other people for there to be any moral justification for population control through incentives or any form of coercive control? Why not if it harms others indirectly? Most libertarians and anarchists agree that an individual's natural right to lead her own life and do as she pleases stops at the point where she inflicts harm on others. "Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose." If I dump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, don't the people whom my pollution harms have the right to force me to put less in the air or to pay for the damage? Or do you take the position that everyone has the right to pollute the air and water all they want, without any interference? If everyone does so, then we have an multiperson Prisoner's Dilemma: each individual has an incentive to pollute *more* than the optimal amount, and the result will be a collectively suboptimal amount (excess) of pollution; i.e., society as a whole will be suffering greater COSTS from the pollution than it is receiving BENEFITS from allowing this amount of pollution, and yet no individual will have an incentive to reduce the amount pollution he generates, since the individual alone bears the costs of doing so, while the benefits, even though larger than the costs, are spread out over the whole society. Obviously, the consequences could be severe. There is thus a prima facie case for some sort of enforcement mechanism that would INTERNALIZE the cost of pollution, e.g., through taxes equal to the social (total) cost of the pollution (at a given level) to be paid by the polluter. Then the polluter, to maximize profit, will reduce his pollution to the collectively optimal amount. If this is unclear, please see any basic economics textbook. Now, if it is reasonable to impose a tax on a polluter, why isn't it reasonable or legitimate to impose a tax or other penalty on a family that chooses to have an "excess" child, if the *net* effect of excess children is harmful? The point is not that we can calculate the exact costs and benefits of an additional child -- clearly, we can't. The point is that there is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having another child, or attempting to change their preferences through propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net harmful effect on other people. After all, that is how we handle pollution, or should. Or do you have a better plan? Because let's get one thing straight: the potential consequences of overpopulation are catastrophic. They could well include the premature deaths of millions or billions through war, disease, or famine; and the extinction of large numbers of species, which alone would have severe consequences for humans. The potential consequences are a *severe* reduction in the quality and/or length of life for present and future generations -- we're not talking about reducing the per capita income by 1% or some other triviality. The fact must be faced that the individually optimal choice does not, in general, produce the collectively optimal outcome, except in certain special circumstances, such as the free market rather stringently defined. It seems to me that you may have fallen into the habit of overgeneralizing from the marketplace so familiar to us, and attributed market characteristics to non-market situations. There is no *a priori* reason to think that allowing individual parents to choose the number of their offspring just as they please will lead to a collectively optimal or even to a non-catastrophic outcome. >Since you've already stated that the state has the moral right to >control the lives of others... That's clearly not what I said. > If you concede that the state has the >right to control a couple's reproductive choices, then it's a small >step to say that the state has the right to force the issue with an >abortion or infantcide. In my opinion there is room for debate as to whether a state may ever legitimately *require* an abortion, and under what circumstances. But no population control advocate I know of supports infanticide as a means of population control, even though infanticide has been commonly practiced in many historical periods, including in modern Europe, as a means of "birth" control. >Your view is not very compatible with a good life for the *present* >generation of humanity. Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my >freedom to support ghosts of the future, especially for the dubious >arguments that you've cited. Calling the arguments I've presented "dubious" does not answer them, nor does it answer the arguments in favor of population control presented by other people in books and articles. You are not being asked to "give up your freedom", any more than a manufacturer is being asked to give up his freedom when he is taxed for polluting. What he loses is his freedom to pollute as much as he likes without paying for it, and you are being asked to give up the freedom to have as many children as you want, at least in some circumstances, without paying some sort of price for it. >Such population gloom-and-doom >scenarios neglect the facts that people tend to reproduce *less* as >their standard of living increases... This is known as the "demographic transition" and, far from being neglected, is well known to everyone who has even a casual knowledge of human population studies. If you wish to argue that the demographic transition will keep the earth from being overpopulated, (as Dr. Ruth would say if she heard that you were using contraceptives) terrrific. So let's hear your argument. >that the Earth still has plenty of resources and can feed its >inhabitants, Did you read the latter half of my article, in which I quoted the Ehrlichs to the effect that humanity is using up its "capital" and degrading its sources of income? If you're going to respond to my articles, please at least address the points I make, don't simply ignore them. Of course the earth still has plenty of resources, but it is not feeding its inhabitants now, although perhaps it "can". At any rate the question is what will happen in the future, not just what is the situation right now. >and that this is not the only place to live in the universe. Again, what is your plan? How many will go and when? First, it is simply false that the possibility of emigration to other planets has been neglected by "gloom-and-doomers", and second, you are merely waving your hand and saying that emigration will solve the overpopulation problem. Give me some numbers. Perhaps your great-grandfather was on the Titanic, telling everyone, "Relax, there are other ships out there somewhere". Again, if anyone replies, please send a copy by email if you want to make sure that I read it. Thank you. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
dlo@drutx.UUCP (OlsonDL) (08/20/86)
[] [Michael Stein] >>Even today, as several people have noted when talking about the >>Ethiopian problem, the world produces enough food. The problem is >>distribution and storage. >My understanding is that the world currently produces enough food to >feed everyone, or nearly everyone, adequately. But the enormous >problem of distributing the food to those who need it has been and >will continue to be aggravated by overpopulation, in various ways. >For example, overgrazing has resulted in desertification in the >Sahel. A while back I read in the newspaper something about that everybody in the world could be placed into an area the size of the state of Texas, and the population would be about that of New York City. I was skeptical, but it turns that NYC is more densely populated. Texas covers 267,339 square miles. For 5 billion people, that's 18,702/sq mi. New York covers about 319 square miles. For 7 million people, that's 21,943/sq mi. >Richard Carnes David Olson ..!ihnp4!drutx!dlo "Eliminate the impossible, my dear doctor, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- Sherlock Holmes
brandenberg@star.dec.com (Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy.) (08/22/86)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci,net.philosophy Path: decwrl!amdcad!amd!intelca!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo !columbia!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Subject: Re: Population control Posted: 20 Aug 86 03:27:08 GMT Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept. Xref: decwrl net.politics:19076 net.sci:1587 net.philosophy:6656 A rejoinder in the spirit of American Constitutional Democracy, Laissez-faire Capitalism, and Enlightenment Metaphysics: [Richard Carnes net.sci:1587,net.politics:19076,net.philosophy:6656] >[Marc Campos] >> [...] And unless you can point out solid reasons why >>some peoples' having children directly and forcibly harms other >>people, you don't have a moral case. > >But why must having a child (an additional child) DIRECTLY and >FORCIBLY harm other people for there to be any moral justification >for population control through incentives or any form of coercive >control? Why not if it harms others indirectly? I, too, would ask the first question, answering that having a child that would directly and forcibly harm other people is not moral justification for population control. That by directing the government to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," the founding fathers intended that we indeed have a posterity, and that procreation is part-and-parcel of these blessings. This is the nature of my disagreement with you: that you have assumed, in the Great Society tradition, that you may legislate regardless of empowered authority in order to control any particular aspect of private or public life which you find efficacious to so do. That you ignore the principles set forth in the Constitution as a standard for judging the appropriateness or merit of legislative and executive action and have taken up the banner of, sometimes numerous and incompatible, sociological valuators whose validity derives from perceived benefits in the narrow area it is concerned with or the favorable academic reputations of the authors who propose it. > >Most libertarians and anarchists agree that an individual's natural >right to lead her own life and do as she pleases stops at the point >where she inflicts harm on others. Argument from authority? > "Your right to swing your fist >stops at my nose." If I dump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, >don't the people whom my pollution harms have the right to force me >to put less in the air or to pay for the damage? Or do you take the >position that everyone has the right to pollute the air and water all >they want, without any interference? If everyone does so, then we >have an multiperson Prisoner's Dilemma: each individual has an >incentive to pollute *more* than the optimal amount, and the result >will be a collectively suboptimal amount (excess) of pollution; i.e., >society as a whole will be suffering greater COSTS from the pollution >than it is receiving BENEFITS from allowing this amount of pollution, >and yet no individual will have an incentive to reduce the amount >pollution he generates, since the individual alone bears the costs of >doing so, while the benefits, even though larger than the costs, are >spread out over the whole society. Obviously, the consequences could >be severe. > >There is thus a prima facie case for some sort of enforcement >mechanism that would INTERNALIZE the cost of pollution, e.g., through >taxes equal to the social (total) cost of the pollution (at a given >level) to be paid by the polluter. Then the polluter, to maximize >profit, will reduce his pollution to the collectively optimal amount. >If this is unclear, please see any basic economics textbook. > >Now, if it is reasonable to impose a tax on a polluter, why isn't it >reasonable or legitimate to impose a tax or other penalty on a family >that chooses to have an "excess" child, if the *net* effect of excess >children is harmful? Proof by analogy or just a red herring? It is neither reasonable or legitimate by this argument. You have said: (1) Because the net effect (of pollution) is harmful, state intervention is motivated and justified. (2) Because the net effect (of excess children) is harmful, state intervention is motivated and justified. As you don't state it explicitly, I'll propose that your metaphysical principle is: IF any action is judged harmful by some criterion THEN state intervention is motivated and justified. There is no such principle in American Constitutional Law and in the specific case of procreation, and a number of other areas, state intervention is excluded by way of unalienable [sic] rights and reasonable expectations. >The point is not that we can calculate the exact costs and benefits >of an additional child -- clearly, we can't. The point is that there >is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having >another child, or attempting to change their preferences through >propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer >euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net >harmful effect on other people. After all, that is how we handle >pollution, or should. Analogy again? > Or do you have a better plan? Because let's >get one thing straight: the potential consequences of overpopulation >are catastrophic. They could well include the premature deaths of >millions or billions through war, disease, or famine; and the >extinction of large numbers of species, which alone would have severe >consequences for humans. The potential consequences are a *severe* >reduction in the quality and/or length of life for present and future >generations -- we're not talking about reducing the per capita income >by 1% or some other triviality. First, a comment on assumed consequences not limitied to the immediate question. The above follows the form of arguments in certain popular social discussions, i.e., IF current statistical trends continue THEN [undesirable/obvious/catastrophic result] The precedent is assumed as an extant fact and then focus is placed on the consequent, historical forms of this being: U.S. becomes a service economy (Naisbett/Megatrends crowd) One square yard of land per (Many from the '60's) person by 2060 Exhausted oil reserves by 1990 (") Ice caps melt flooding New York (") Inevitable nuclear war (" + 50's + 70's + 80's ) Fins are in this year (Cadillac before Khrushchev) West converted to Communism by (Any 19th century Socialist) revolution Second, I infer from your remarks that you believe no one can be trusted to making their own reproduction choices. Consider the decision process of choosing to have a child. There are motivations: simply want a child, enjoy raising a child, enjoy the creation. Motivation exists; we are here. There are also restraints: cost of raising a child, restriction of personal freedom due to commitments. For this, I'll even resort to the rhetoric which is found at such times as during detente, Vietnam, or Love Canal and that is "Who'd bring up a child in this world?" And yet, that generation and all the others have brought up children. Each individual in each generation looks at the prevailing and expected conditions and decides what to do. The attractions and detractions are weighed and, to anticipate the following remarks, a market decision is made. Some markets are the creation of man and some are natural in that the entry cost is in terms of what an individual life can provide. But any decision that a person makes which has any external manifestation is a market decision: there are no non-market decisions. > >The fact must be faced that the individually optimal choice does not, >in general, produce the collectively optimal outcome, except in >certain special circumstances, such as the free market rather >stringently defined. It seems to me that you may have fallen into >the habit of overgeneralizing from the marketplace so familiar to us, >and attributed market characteristics to non-market situations. >There is no *a priori* reason to think that allowing individual >parents to choose the number of their offspring just as they please >will lead to a collectively optimal or even to a non-catastrophic >outcome. > There is no *a priori* reason to accept collective optimization as a metaphysical axiom. I, and the framers of the Constitution, have rejected it. Period. >>Since you've already stated that the state has the moral right to >>control the lives of others... > >That's clearly not what I said. > [1] The point is that there P => ~ ~ Q is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having another child, or attempting to change their preferences through propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net harmful effect on other people [2] Because let's get one thing straight: the P potential consequences of overpopulation are catastrophic Either you just said it or the entirety of your reasoning is qualified with phrases such as "potential." > > [ an exchange on state control of reproduction ] > [ one on freedom and the pollution analogy ] > [ one on demographic transition and space, the final > frontier ] > [ ad hominem about ancestor on Titanic ] > Both sides in the quoted text have assumed that the state has the right to control population if it so chooses and, having dispensed of the question, proceeded to argue whether that right should now be exercised. I maintain that the question of governmental population control in the United States is moot: that no such power is invested in the governing bodies and that any efforts to establish such control are essentially immoral. To quote from Cato's letters, "To live securely, happily, and independently is the End and Effect of Liberty ... and real or fancied Necessity alone makes Men the Servants, Followers, and Creatures of one another." Monty Brandenberg P.S. My response to the original text has been confined mostly to the lack of grounding principle for any governmental control of population in the United States. This is in no way to be construed as agreement with the claimed factual details or their consequences in this and previous exchanges. In particular, the sufficiency and completeness of market forces in regulating decisions. P.P.S. This discussion has made a contribution to the practice of public debate by creating a new form of fallacious argument. I will call it "Truth by reason of Compromise" and it proceeds as follows: one side takes a position, the other hints at an extreme position in opposition but takes one somewhere between the two. By virtue of standing the middle ground, the position must be correct. Examples from the text: 1. But why must having a child (an additional child) ... 2. In my opinion there is room for debate as to whether a state may ever legitimately *require* an abortion, and under what circumstances. But no population control advocate I know of supports infanticide as a means of population control, even though infanticide has been commonly practiced in many historical periods, including in modern Europe, as a means of "birth" control. 3. What he loses is his freedom to pollute as much as he likes without paying for it, and you are being asked to give up the freedom to have as many children as you want, at least in some circumstances, without paying some sort of price for it. DISCLAIMER: These views do not reflect the opinions of my employer. If our views coincided, we'd make more money.
cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) (08/24/86)
In article <553@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >[Marc Campos] >>But most responsible people do not consider meddling with other >>peoples' lives as a reasonable alternative. It *is* abhorrent to >>interfere with such a personal choice because the individual's right >>to lead his own life is inalienable and self-justifying; it does not >>belong to the state. And unless you can point out solid reasons why >>some peoples' having children directly and forcibly harms other >>people, you don't have a moral case. > >But why must having a child (an additional child) DIRECTLY and >FORCIBLY harm other people for there to be any moral justification >for population control through incentives or any form of coercive >control? Why not if it harms others indirectly? > >Most libertarians and anarchists agree that an individual's natural >right to lead her own life and do as she pleases stops at the point >where she inflicts harm on others. "Your right to swing your fist >stops at my nose." If I dump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, >don't the people whom my pollution harms have the right to force me >to put less in the air or to pay for the damage? Or do you take the >position that everyone has the right to pollute the air and water all >they want, without any interference? If everyone does so, then we >have an multiperson Prisoner's Dilemma: each individual has an >incentive to pollute *more* than the optimal amount, and the result >will be a collectively suboptimal amount (excess) of pollution; i.e., >society as a whole will be suffering greater COSTS from the pollution >than it is receiving BENEFITS from allowing this amount of pollution, >and yet no individual will have an incentive to reduce the amount >pollution he generates, since the individual alone bears the costs of >doing so, while the benefits, even though larger than the costs, are >spread out over the whole society. Obviously, the consequences could >be severe. > >There is thus a prima facie case for some sort of enforcement >mechanism that would INTERNALIZE the cost of pollution, e.g., through >taxes equal to the social (total) cost of the pollution (at a given >level) to be paid by the polluter. Then the polluter, to maximize >profit, will reduce his pollution to the collectively optimal amount. >If this is unclear, please see any basic economics textbook. > >Now, if it is reasonable to impose a tax on a polluter, why isn't it >reasonable or legitimate to impose a tax or other penalty on a family >that chooses to have an "excess" child, if the *net* effect of excess >children is harmful? > >The point is not that we can calculate the exact costs and benefits >of an additional child -- clearly, we can't. The point is that there >is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having >another child, or attempting to change their preferences through >propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer >euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net >harmful effect on other people. After all, that is how we handle >pollution, or should. Or do you have a better plan? Because let's >get one thing straight: the potential consequences of overpopulation >are catastrophic. They could well include the premature deaths of >millions or billions through war, disease, or famine; and the >extinction of large numbers of species, which alone would have severe >consequences for humans. The potential consequences are a *severe* >reduction in the quality and/or length of life for present and future >generations -- we're not talking about reducing the per capita income >by 1% or some other triviality. > >The fact must be faced that the individually optimal choice does not, >in general, produce the collectively optimal outcome, except in >certain special circumstances, such as the free market rather >stringently defined. It seems to me that you may have fallen into >the habit of overgeneralizing from the marketplace so familiar to us, >and attributed market characteristics to non-market situations. >There is no *a priori* reason to think that allowing individual >parents to choose the number of their offspring just as they please >will lead to a collectively optimal or even to a non-catastrophic >outcome. > >>Since you've already stated that the state has the moral right to >>control the lives of others... > >That's clearly not what I said. > >> If you concede that the state has the >>right to control a couple's reproductive choices, then it's a small >>step to say that the state has the right to force the issue with an >>abortion or infantcide. > >In my opinion there is room for debate as to whether a state may ever >legitimately *require* an abortion, and under what circumstances. >But no population control advocate I know of supports infanticide as >a means of population control, even though infanticide has been >commonly practiced in many historical periods, including in modern >Europe, as a means of "birth" control. > >>Your view is not very compatible with a good life for the *present* >>generation of humanity. Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my >>freedom to support ghosts of the future, especially for the dubious >>arguments that you've cited. > >Calling the arguments I've presented "dubious" does not answer them, >nor does it answer the arguments in favor of population control >presented by other people in books and articles. You are not being >asked to "give up your freedom", any more than a manufacturer is >being asked to give up his freedom when he is taxed for polluting. >What he loses is his freedom to pollute as much as he likes without >paying for it, and you are being asked to give up the freedom to have >as many children as you want, at least in some circumstances, without >paying some sort of price for it. > >>Such population gloom-and-doom >>scenarios neglect the facts that people tend to reproduce *less* as >>their standard of living increases... > >This is known as the "demographic transition" and, far from being >neglected, is well known to everyone who has even a casual knowledge >of human population studies. If you wish to argue that the >demographic transition will keep the earth from being overpopulated, >(as Dr. Ruth would say if she heard that you were using >contraceptives) terrrific. So let's hear your argument. > >>that the Earth still has plenty of resources and can feed its >>inhabitants, > >Did you read the latter half of my article, in which I quoted the >Ehrlichs to the effect that humanity is using up its "capital" and >degrading its sources of income? If you're going to respond to my >articles, please at least address the points I make, don't simply >ignore them. Of course the earth still has plenty of resources, but >it is not feeding its inhabitants now, although perhaps it "can". At >any rate the question is what will happen in the future, not just >what is the situation right now. > >>and that this is not the only place to live in the universe. > >Again, what is your plan? How many will go and when? First, it is >simply false that the possibility of emigration to other planets has >been neglected by "gloom-and-doomers", and second, you are merely >waving your hand and saying that emigration will solve the >overpopulation problem. Give me some numbers. Perhaps your >great-grandfather was on the Titanic, telling everyone, "Relax, there >are other ships out there somewhere". > >Again, if anyone replies, please send a copy by email if you want to >make sure that I read it. Thank you. > >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes -- /'C`\ TWALG ASHALC RITMOHF. Andre Guirard ( o_o ) Botoj de timeco )) _ (( AWSWG SWVVG BWSWBSWH! ihnp4!mmm!cipher /// \\\
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/27/86)
[Jan Wasilewsky] >(1) People who predict depletion of soil, oil etc., predicted >these before, and were incorrect. So often before, and so incorrect, >that they need not be taken seriously. The moment when we are >expected to run out of a given resource is usually a decade or two >ahead. It was there many decades ago, and still is. Right now I am >using their own method - extrapolation, only I am using it on their >own predictions. It predicts that a century from now, gloom and >doom will still be just around the corner. Jan does not cite any specific erroneous predictions, and I don't know which predictions he is referring to. In any case the track record of previous predictions is irrelevant. The question of resource depletion is a SCIENTIFIC question; it should be investigated and answered by the accepted methods of scientific inquiry in such fields as geology, soil science, biology, and economics. There seems to be solid scientific evidence, for example, that topsoils around the world are being eroded at an alarming rate. In the US, water erosion alone is depleting topsoil twice as fast as it can be renewed (references available on request). If Jan wants to argue that we need not worry about resource depletion, he should cite some published scientific work that we can read, or present such arguments on the net. To evaluate any current predictions (without waiting for the events to occur), we need to know what are the correct and incorrect ways of generating a prediction. The most important arguments for slowing population growth, however, are ECOLOGICAL arguments, rather than claims that we are running out of this or that. The ecologist's concept of *carrying capacity* can be invoked to show that the human population is exceeding the earth's long-term carrying capacity for our species. Human activities are causing the extinction of huge numbers of species, and the process is accelerated by population increase. For numerous reasons, these extinctions will have a severe impact on the quality of human lives. Again, these issues can only be settled by scientific investigation and debate. There is evidence that the population of the Mayan civilization in the Guatemalan lowlands crashed within a short period around 900 A.D. to one tenth of its previous size, and that this was directly related to overpopulation (reference available on request). So such crashes may not be unprecedented in the human population. >(2) Even if (1) were wrong, resources that do get depleted can be >replaced through human ingenuity. Human brains are the universal >resource; the more of them, the better. If our ancestors had re- >duced their population by Watt, Tesla, Burbank, and a few others, >there would be less, not more, goodies per capita today. No doubt some resources can be replaced. How do we know they can all be replaced? At what cost? Also, as I mentioned above, resource depletion is only a part of the problem. A strong case can be made that the negative impact of population growth on the environment increases at a much faster rate than the rate of population growth. That is, adding 10 people to a population will generally have more than twice the negative environmental impact that adding 5 people will have, at least at current or higher population levels. Accordingly the problems may well increase faster than the human ability to deal with them. This is also a scientific question that can only be answered by ecological studies, not by Jan's handwaving assurance that human ingenuity will be able to solve the problems. I would ask Jan the same questions I would ask of someone who asserted that human brainpower would be able to solve the survival problems that would face us if an asteroid crashed into the earth or the sun became a supernova: "On what basis do you make this assertion? How do you know?" A good brief introduction to these ecological issues is P.R. Ehrlich and J.P. Holdren, "Impact of population growth", *Science* 171: 1212-17 (1971). A good lengthy introduction is *Ecoscience* by the same coauthors. >(3) If (1) and (2) were wrong, population could be effectively >controlled without government intervention. How do you know? The fact that ZPG has been attained at times in the past without government intervention does not prove that it will be attainable without government intervention whenever we need it. Indeed, the fact that the human population is expected to increase to at least 10 billion, even *with* some governmental population control measures, is a strong argument that government intervention is now necessary. >(4) If (1), (2) and (3) were wrong, it would be better to have >famine, disease and war reduce population, than to submit to >government tyranny. Losing freedom is losing everything, and a >government that does not stop at one's skin, will stop nowhere. I doubt that Sakharov, Jefferson, Spinoza, Epictetus, or Socrates would agree that losing political freedom is losing everything, the *summum malum*. Nor do I think that most people living today in countries you consider unfree would agree. Would you assert that a nuclear war that wiped out the human race is preferable to tyranny? In my opinion that would be a monstrous assertion. But in any case I do not advocate any tyrannical measures by government, with regard to population control or anything else. I advocate only measures that will protect people's rights, and I think that Jan would agree that measures that protect natural rights cannot be tyrannical. I will save the discussion of rights for a later article. >>But the view that everyone should be allowed to have as many > ^^^^^^^ >>children as they want, with no attempt to use government to in- > >Allowed ! You've come a long way, baby. I don't understand your objection to the term "allowed". By "allowed" I intended "not prohibited", perhaps its most common meaning. Richard Carnes
smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) (08/29/86)
In article <555@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >[Jan Wasilewsky] >>(4) If (1), (2) and (3) were wrong, it would be better to have >>famine, disease and war reduce population, than to submit to >>government tyranny. Losing freedom is losing everything, and a >>government that does not stop at one's skin, will stop nowhere. > >I doubt that Sakharov, Jefferson, Spinoza, Epictetus, or Socrates >would agree that losing political freedom is losing everything, the >*summum malum*. Nor do I think that most people living today in >countries you consider unfree would agree. Would you assert that a >nuclear war that wiped out the human race is preferable to tyranny? >In my opinion that would be a monstrous assertion. > I find Wasilewsky's assertion so very ridiculous that I must insert my own two cents here. To take a case that has been debated in American politics for the past few decades, would you rather be dead, or "Red"? For myself, I would rather live under (and fight) a Soviet tyranny than be a cloud of vapor or some other sort of wartime casualty. I don't like either idea, but I would rather that we all tightened our belts, even at the cost of some civil liberties, than that we should loose the Four Horsemen yet again. Liberty is very important, indeed worth fighting for, but life is more precious yet. If the human race is to survive, we must not destroy our home; if there are people who cannot see this, we may have to use coercion. If it comes down to my life or your liberty, and it very well may do so ... or, if it is your life or my liberty ... it is not possible to always preserve both, and life must come first. As long as there is life, there is always the possibility of liberty. >Richard Carnes \scott -- Scott Hazen Mueller lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev City of Turlock work: (209) 668-5590 -or- 5628 901 South Walnut Avenue home: (209) 527-1203 Turlock, CA 95380 <Insert pithy saying here...>
slj@mtung.UUCP (S. Luke Jones) (08/29/86)
"Nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." --Ripley, in the motion picture ALIENS. > ... > would you rather be dead, or "Red"? For myself, I "Better Dead than Red" is a punched-up, succinct restatement of Patrick Henry's famous speech ending, "Is life so sweet, or peace so dear, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." Henry was NOT advocating rolling up into a ball and dying under British oppression. He was advocating kicking their butts back to England where they belonged, and he was dismissing the argument that some blood would be spilled in the process. (Thomas Jefferson said the same thing when he told us "the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.") > would rather live under (and fight) a Soviet tyranny than be a cloud of vapor > or some other sort of wartime casualty. We can infer from the Soviet Agrarian Reform Program in Afghanistan that you might well end up dead anyway, courtesy a Hind gunship, if you persisted in resisting the benefits of socialism. From WWII, we can infer that if you lived to be captured by the Russians you might be killed outright as at Katyn Forest in Poland or marched across a field to clear it of mines. War is no Sunday School Picnic. Casualties DO happen. > I don't like either idea, but I > would rather that we all tightened our belts, even at the cost of some civil > liberties, than that we should loose the Four Horsemen yet again. Liberty > is very important, indeed worth fighting for, but life is more precious yet. "Some civil liberties"? Do you think the Russians are going to stop after imposing a curfew and prohibiting free assembly? Ask someone who lived in Berlin in May, 1945 where the Russians drew the line. For that matter, ask a "refusenik" in Moscow today. Maybe things aren't quite as obvious today, because they're done retail now rather than wholesale, but in a society where you could arbitrarily be denounced for the high crime of monitoring Helsinki Convention violations and sentenced to 10 years labor in a camp with a mean life expectancy of six months, life without "some civil liberties" could be quite short indeed. > If the human race is to survive, we must not destroy our home; if there are > people who cannot see this, we may have to use coercion. If it comes down > to my life or your liberty, and it very well may do so ... or, if it is your > life or my liberty ... it is not possible to always preserve both, and life > must come first. As long as there is life, there is always the possibility > of liberty. You seem to be saying, "A burglar is coming over here tonight. If you don't leave it unlocked, he may damage the door when he kicks it in." (Or, to bring the bogeyman of N-weapons into the picture, "A stupid burglar is coming over tonight to rob the house, but first he's going to have it bulldozed.") If we are to be killed (or -- lucky us -- merely robbed, pistol-whipped, and threatened repeatedly with death) and our home is to be given over to our victimizers, and if THEY make the home uninhabitable in the process, you want me to cry tears? If they'd stay away from my house, they wouldn't have a problem! > Scott Hazen Mueller Luke Jones -- O "It'll be just like bulls-eyeing Womp Rats O OOO O in Devil's Canyon back home in my T-16." OO O OO OOOO OOO OOOO S. Luke Jones OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ...ihnp4!mtung!slj OOOOOOOOOOOOO AT&T Information Systems OOOOOOO Middletown, NJ, U.S.A.
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/31/86)
[Jan Wasilewsky] >All these were widely predicted in the 60's for the 70's and the >80's [and did not come to pass]. Again I would ask Jan to cite chapter and verse, explain what was predicted and what actually happened, and explain why some mistaken predictions invalidate all such predictions. >The above is full of "potential", "could" and "would". One could >just as easily draw a scenario in which too *few* people would >prove perilous. E.g., a new virus killing off everyone but >bearers of a rare immunity trait. The more people, the more >chance that a viable remnant survives. But the more people, the greater the chance of a virulent pandemic in the first place. The high population density, unsanitary conditions, malnutrition (which reduces resistance to disease), and ecosystem degradation associated with overpopulation provide a fertile medium for the spread of infectious diseases. Our ancestors survived for millions of years (which saw extreme climatic changes) at population levels far lower than the present 5 billion (probably much less than 1 million, if memory serves). I don't know if there has been any species whose extinction was primarily due to infectious disease. The genetic variability of the human population is much less important in the modern control of infectious disease than the genetic library found in other species. Many medicines have been developed from other species, some examples being quinine, penicillin, streptomycin, tetracycline, and cytarabine. We have barely begun to tap the potential of other species to provide medical benefits -- a strong argument in favor of species and ecosystem preservation (especially in tropical forests), which in turn is a strong argument in favor of human population control. Richard Carnes
smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) (09/02/86)
In article <765@mtung.UUCP> slj@mtung.UUCP (S. Luke Jones) writes: % <Myself> % would rather live under (and fight) a Soviet tyranny than be a cloud of vapor % or some other sort of wartime casualty. >We can infer from the Soviet Agrarian Reform Program in Afghanistan that you >might well end up dead anyway, courtesy a Hind gunship, if you persisted in >resisting the benefits of socialism. From WWII, we can infer that if you >lived to be captured by the Russians you might be killed outright as at Katyn >Forest in Poland or marched across a field to clear it of mines. War is no >Sunday School Picnic. Casualties DO happen. There is a minor difference between Afghanistan or Poland and the U.S. In both cases, the Soviet are/were able to direct military force from within their own borders into an immediate neighbor. A 3000-mile supply line (Okay, 2 miles or so to Alaska :-) and a two-front war against another superpower will mean that the Soviets cannot simply roll over us. I'm not saying that I would survive in this sort of fight, but I would like to at least survive long enough _to_ fight. % I don't like either idea, but I % would rather that we all tightened our belts, even at the cost of some civil % liberties, than that we should loose the Four Horsemen yet again. Liberty % is very important, indeed worth fighting for, but life is more precious yet. >"Some civil liberties"? Do you think the Russians are going to stop after >imposing a curfew and prohibiting free assembly? Ask someone who lived in >Berlin in May, 1945 where the Russians drew the line. For that matter, ask >a "refusenik" in Moscow today. Maybe things aren't quite as obvious today, >because they're done retail now rather than wholesale, but in a society >where you could arbitrarily be denounced for the high crime of monitoring >Helsinki Convention violations and sentenced to 10 years labor in a camp >with a mean life expectancy of six months, life without "some civil >liberties" could be quite short indeed. Agreed. The original point that I was making regarded population control (and social/governmental pressure) with the Soviet question as an analogy. I'm attempting to explain a personal ethical position, and apparently not doing too well. More comments below. % If the human race is to survive, we must not destroy our home; if there are % people who cannot see this, we may have to use coercion. If it comes down % to my life or your liberty, and it very well may do so ... or, if it is your % life or my liberty ... it is not possible to always preserve both, and life % must come first. As long as there is life, there is always the possibility % of liberty. >You seem to be saying, "A burglar is coming over here tonight. If you >don't leave it unlocked, he may damage the door when he kicks it in." >[...] If they'd stay away from my house, they wouldn't have a problem! % Scott Hazen Mueller >Luke Jones No, I'm saying that we are fouling our homeworld. If we wish to have _our_ home remain livable, we are going to have to come up with some sort of com- promise between my desire to have a habitable world and someone else's desire to have children without limit (see the original discussion). As far as your burglar analogy goes, my response is "Get a gun and kill the SOB." If he wants to have _his_ life and _his_ civil liberties, he had better not try to infringe upon _mine_. \scott -- Scott Hazen Mueller lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev City of Turlock work: (209) 668-5590 -or- 5628 901 South Walnut Avenue home: (209) 527-1203 Turlock, CA 95380 <Insert pithy saying here...>
trost@reed.UUCP (Bill Trost) (09/08/86)
As I understand it, there is a large outcry these days for an increase in the birth rate in the United States. This even seems to have worked its way into law, or at least into the courts. The Supreme Court opinion on sodomy laws, if I am not mistaken, referred to the idea that this laws would eventually mean the end of human existance. Admittedly, the connection hear is tenuous, and I may not even be considering the correct nation -- this may have been the opinion of a Belgic justice.