ENG601PM Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 How do you apply that in a moral way? What's moral about it? No humans, no morals, no problems. The planet will be fine without a single human on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 That literally makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 How do you apply that in a moral way? Not easily... I imagine the best option would be if people decided for themselves, to limit how many kids they have. Perhaps through education, and understanding the impact of over population. Other ideas off the top of my head, include, financial incentives, fines, and ultimately as a last resort, sterilisation. I know that sounds horribly harsh, and I feel uncomfortable and grim even suggesting it. Considering the morality of this though, you can either look at it in isolation; and sure, you can't be dictating to people how many kids they can have (for me, I think I'm a fairly liberal sort, and feel people should be able to do whatever they like, while not harming others). Or you can look at it from a wider perspective and consider the effect over population is having on us all, on the environment and other species on the planet. Do we need to do something, or is it okay to let population growth continue unchecked? Of course, it makes much more sense to try the softer approaches (education and financial incentives) first. As for the harsher option, I don't know, I'm struggling to square it morally myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ENG601PM Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 That literally makes no sense. I don't feel very surprised that you don't understand. Imagine the planet as an indian train. You can allow one off, and one on. Or you can allow a free for all and let people clamber on the roof and hang out of the doors. Or you can do away with the train altogether. The people will suffer more or less, unless there are no people to suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 Interesting question, don't you think? At first glance it doeasn't even merit discussion. The answer is "no". Isn't it? However, the idea has reared its rather ugly face twice recently. Well known Eugenics fan Toby Young has suggested selecting embryos for intelligence as a way out of poverty. Add to that, Ben Bradley's suggestion that vasectomies are the way to stem a "vast sea of unemployed wasters" and you have a question that needs answering. These are two mainsream members of the Tory right wing. Young was well enough regarded to be given a role supervising Universities, Bradley is a vice chair of the Tory parliamentary party. So neither of them are so divorced from Government that they can be regarded as mavericks. So, can we selectively breed poverty out of the human race? Would we want to? Restrict wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 How do you apply that in a moral way? By saying that overpopulation of the planet is more immoral than having more than say three children.... There are ways to encourage this of course. Child benefit restrictions are a form of control on birth rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 By saying that overpopulation of the planet is more immoral than having more than say three children. Yes, that's a good point. With any moral quandary, you can't just look at it in isolation, you have to compare and contrast it with the alternative. Picking the lesser of two evils. I was also listening to something about morality, that was suggesting two approaches; I think one considered morality from the perspective of intent, and the other from the perspective of impact. I forget what they called each approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 Yes, that's a good point. With any moral quandary, you can't just look at it in isolation, you have to compare and contrast it with the alternative. Picking the lesser of two evils. I was also listening to something about morality, that was suggesting two approaches; I think one considered morality from the perspective of intent, and the other from the perspective of impact. I forget what they called each approach. Absolute and relativist..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 Absolute and relativist..? Deontological and Consequentialism. From a podcast, Tim Ferriss was interviewing Liv Boeree (hubba hubba). Worth a listen, she explains from 6:30... https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/tim-ferriss-show/tribe-of-mentors/e/52473790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 Cool I'll grab that for a listen over dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now