All people have dignity and worth. Considering that earths carrying capacity is about a billion people and we have about 6 billion Isn’t feeding starving people and other humanitarian aid perpetuating suffering? At some point in the future human population and quality of life are going to plummet to possibly even zero. Why not try to do some population control i.e. birth control, sterilization, and sexual education. Only provide humanitarian aid to people who also participate in the population control program.
You mean like the woman close to Los Angeles who had six children, took fertility drugs and just had octuplates (no idea how to spell this).
Occam
I was thinking more like the third world where 90% of population growth occurs. In her specific case she should have all her children taken away and any new children she has as well since she obviously an unfit parent. It would be nice to sterilize her as well but that would be unethical.
Can I tack on another humanitarian issue in addition to these two?
Seeing local synagogues and national American Jewish groups’ idea of humanitarian aid during the latest Gaza crisis—raising funds for the relief of fellow Jews along the strip (food, therapy, media, mostly everyday-living quality-of-life restoration) while the Israeli air force is pounding Gazans back into the Stone Age, destroying $1.5 billion of local infrastructure and killing over 1,300 Palestinians, with 5,500 injured and 4,000 buildings destroyed (Wiki figures)—has been, to me, understandably partisan but mind-bogglingly inhumane.
Judaism doesn’t have the idealistic forgiveness principle that Christianity has, but of course it’d be tough for even the most altruistic Christian theists to support even the “enemy” in a crisis. And muslim theology speaks for itself. Can there be a hypothetically nonpartisan humanist response?
Judaism doesn’t have the idealistic forgiveness principle that Christianity has. . .
I think both Judiasm and Christianity cover that, albeit obliquely, in their writings (for example - Rabbi Hillel’s version of the golden rule: Treat others as they would be treated). The problem has always been that they talk a good game, but when it comes to action most pay no attention to the ethical and moral commandments or recommendations and many of all religious faiths act in their own self-interest, and often cruelly.
I tend to believe the population problem is the biggest long-term problem we face, far beyond global climate change. I also have given up on fixing it, since the only thing that seems to reliably lower birth rates is a standard of living so high that it’s unsustinable for even the people we have here now, much less for the numbers that are coming. I’m not sanguine about a technological breakthrough that fixes it for us, but it’s always a possibility. And while come strategies do have an impact locally (education, empowering women, etc), they don’t seem to be possible on a scale to truly ameliorate the problem.
That said, I don’t believe it is ethical or practical or helpful in any way to avoid reducing the suffering of people here now with the goal of not encouraging population growth. To take such a position would seem to me to be stripping our moral sense right away, founded as I think it is on empathy and a sense of the significance of the suffering of others. I don’t believe it can or should happen. And the some logic applies to forced sterilization and such methods. I can agree in the abstract that we’re probably doomed without a significant drop in population growth, and probably in total population as well. I just can’t agree that we should pursue passively allowing or even actively causing suffering, in the form of starvation, disease, forced birth control, etc, as a solution to the problem. Grimmer than my usual outlook on things, but I’ve never come up with a better answer to this one.
Judaism doesn’t have the idealistic forgiveness principle that Christianity has. . .
I think both Judiasm and Christianity cover that, albeit obliquely, in their writings (for example - Rabbi Hillel’s version of the golden rule: Treat others as they would be treated). The problem has always been that they talk a good game, but when it comes to action most pay no attention to the ethical and moral commandments or recommendations and many of all religious faiths act in their own self-interest, and often cruelly.
To be fair, Judaism also lacks the typically Christian notion of original sin, for which forgiveness (of sin) becomes so theologically important in Christianity. And there is a strong current of charitable contributions for good works in Judaism as much as in any of the major world religions.
I’m surprised that someone hasn’t come up with a chemical that causes permanent sterilization for either males or females. When someone does, I’m sure that various countries will work hard to sneak it into the water or food of their competitor countries, and possibly release it in crowded areas as a mist. Imagine, for example, the Israelis developing this then supplying the Palestinians “humanitarian” aid in the form of water and food. Then they could just sit back for a generation or two then move in to the depopulated area.
When such technology is developed, we can expect it to be used against just about every country in the world. After a couple of generations, the population would probably be less than 1% of what it is now.
Occam, your idea, when combined with the notion of this as a geopolitical strategy, gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “population bomb”. Or perhaps it should be called a “depopulation bomb”.
Occam, your idea, when combined with the notion of this as a geopolitical strategy, gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “population bomb”. Or perhaps it should be called a “depopulation bomb”.
Then they could just sit back for a generation or two then move in to the depopulated area.
Wouldn’t work: the arms industry wouldn’t allow you to “solve” a conflict. Every year, over 1 trillion dollars are spent on military expenditures worldwide. A war is not about winning anymore.
If I remember correctly, most of the ‘first world’ countries have birth rates that have declined below replacement rates, while the ‘second’ and especially ‘third’ world countries are making the most impact on overpopulation. The pope/ catholic church and increasing mormonism around the world is definitely not helping the matter.
