|
|
Post by grahamthomson on Apr 13, 2009 7:39:07 GMT
I read this with interest this morning; news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7996230.stmWhat are your thoughts on human population control? Is it fair to limit the number of children parents want? Is it our right as humans to have as many children as we please, or is some sort of control required? I will not be having children. That's a conscious decision I've already made for a variety of reasons, and the issue of overburdening our planet with too many humans is one of them. Does that sound cruel? It sounds a bit like I don't value human life very much. That is not the case. I think, while humans are ace on the whole, I don't think we are entitled to complete dominion over the Earth. We have to share stewardship of it with the rest of the life on it. And I think _all_ of that life is precious, not just us. Side note about Woolworths: The media mourned the loss of a high street shop, and yet since then, how many species have faced extinction without mention? So, does it mean we have to be sensible? Is having two children per family the right thing to do? Can parents actually properly nurture more than two children, what with their own lives to tend to? It could be a case of quality, not quantity. I know there are many influential organisations out there, against birth control. But is that the right message if we are to survive as a species? Seems ironic, really, suggesting that we control our reproduction to prolong our time here. Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue? |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Apr 13, 2009 10:10:07 GMT
Given the planet can only support so many people and resources are already severly stretched surely it's responsible to limit the number of children you have ? We're not having more than one
|
|
Gav
Drone
John Travoltage!
Posts: 2,047
|
Post by Gav on Apr 13, 2009 10:28:29 GMT
Well I'm not having any - so go on, have two.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 13, 2009 10:39:49 GMT
The time in my life when I wanted kids passed some time ago. I honestly don't give a fook any more.
-Ralph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2009 13:16:38 GMT
It's a bit of a funny subject this.
If this planet becomes over populated it could spell the end for the planet - more people means more polution and waste which is a contributing factor that ecologists are always jumping on. However, I think that people have the right to have as many children as they want as long as they can handle them (if you haven't got the money to give them a decent enough life why should you have them).
If people do have kids though it is my opinion that they should have at least two. The reason behind this is simple. Their parents are not going to live forever and when time finally runs out for the parents a kid is going to need a family member close to them to deal with the situation - not just the subject of bereavement but also the financial situation. Having only one child would mean that when their parents die they would have to look for other relations to support them in such a distressing situation for them and that might not be a viable option in some cases because they themselves might have their own problems to deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 13, 2009 15:28:10 GMT
Speaking as an only child I just accept it's my responsibility to care for my paremts should they need it. I have no contact with other relations so it would probably be just me doing it, but that as they say is just one of those things. It's never bothered me.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 13, 2009 16:11:57 GMT
I was thinking of starting a thread on this, so thanks, Graham! I heard this story on the radio this morning, along with a story that in China (yes, that country with a policy of limiting the birth rate through legislation) they have made a possible breakthrough in curing female infertility. But I can't find it on the website.
I basically agree with everything you said, Graham, except that while I _do_ want the planet's birth rate to fall (particularly in the developed world, where each new human being has a far greater ecological footprint than a new human being in the developing world), I would like the number of abortions also to fall, as I think that once you start to bring a child into the world you should stick with it, and not cut it off for selfish reasons. Unwanted conceptions should be prevented before they take place - and I think everyone agrees that is preferable to aborting after the fact.
But back to the topic at hand. I don't think anyone has a right to have children. Children aren't possessions. They should be brought into the world for _their_ sake, not for selfish reasons, by people who are prepared to make sacrifices and give them all their love - and consider anything they get in return, even when in old age, a bonus, or at most a reward for doing a good job in bringing them up well. I'm not ruling out ever having children, though I don't feel the need for them and would only have them on the above terms. I'd just as soon be a good uncle, if my sister and her boyfriend get married and oblige me on that front.
But again, back to the topic at hand. As far as I'm concerned, the difficulty arises in the following points: We would all agree that people in the developing world should have a higher standard of living, as comfortable as we have in the developed world. But we also know that the planet cannot sustain everyone on it living as we do in the developed world. It seems to me that the solution lies in two options, or a combination of the two. The two options are (a) reducing the number of people on the planet, through lower birth rates, until it comes down to a number where everyone could live as we do, or (b) finding a new way to live, that is both comfortable and sustainable. The population is unlikely to drop far enough for (a) to be viable, and we are unlikely to find a sustainable way of comfortable living for seven billion people, so I think it will have to be a combination of the two.
The ideal future would be for the birth rate to fall voluntarily through education (focus on responsibilities rather than rights or legal limits on what's allowed), _and_ we move both the developed and the developing countries towards a third kind of society which is both comfortable and sustainable - where the energy does not come from fossil fuels, where everyone lives close to where they work and so needs to use motorised transport only rarely - perhaps once a week for the average person - where we don't enforce vegetarianism, but everyone reduces their meat/fish consumption to a level that is sustainable, say, once a week, and where virtually everything is recycled.
It sounds difficult, but I can't see any other way.
Martin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2009 18:48:39 GMT
I would like the number of abortions also to fall, as I think that once you start to bring a child into the world you should stick with it, and not cut it off for selfish reasons. Unwanted conceptions should be prevented before they take place - and I think everyone agrees that is preferable to aborting after the fact. I'm not against abortions personally. I know its selfish to terminate the life of an unborn child but sometimes there are valid reasons for a woman to have an abortion. Rape is one of these reasons and if a woman falls pregnant through being raped there is a valid reason for an abortion. She doesn't want to bring up a child that came into this world through criminal means. Another reason for an abortion is that a parent hasn't got the financies to bring up another child. The conception was an accident and if they have this child their other child (if they already have one) may suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 13, 2009 19:13:23 GMT
I will always support a woman's right to choose (ie to abort a pregnancy). As a man, I don't feel I have the right to have much say on the matter as it will never be my body.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 13, 2009 19:16:14 GMT
I would like the number of abortions also to fall, as I think that once you start to bring a child into the world you should stick with it, and not cut it off for selfish reasons. Unwanted conceptions should be prevented before they take place - and I think everyone agrees that is preferable to aborting after the fact. I'm not against abortions personally. I know its selfish to terminate the life of an unborn child but sometimes there are valid reasons for a woman to have an abortion. Rape is one of these reasons and if a woman falls pregnant through being raped there is a valid reason for an abortion. She doesn't want to bring up a child that came into this world through criminal means. Another reason for an abortion is that a parent hasn't got the financies to bring up another child. The conception was an accident and if they have this child their other child (if they already have one) may suffer. Well, I said I was against abortions, and I also said I was against people bringing children into the world who they did not intend to love and give their all to. Put those two together, and I wish that the only pregnancies to ever come about in the first place would be those of loving prospective parents, prepared to do a good job. That requires education of the facts, and instilling of a sense of responsibility in the previous generation. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 13, 2009 19:17:34 GMT
I will always support a woman's right to choose (ie to abort a pregnancy). As a man, I don't feel I have the right to have much say on the matter as it will never be my body. Well, we went all over that in another thread. It can be disputed whether it is the woman's body either, once a baby has begun to develop. You may never be a mother, but you were once a foetus. And I hold a grown-up human being's responsibilities always paramount over their rights. (We had that same difference of opinion with respect to organ donation, as I recall.) I admit my difficulty in this thread, namely in weighing responsibility of a parent towards an unborn child and responsibility of that selfsame parent towards the world at large, upon whose resources that child will be a drain. My only satisfactory solutions are not to conceive the child in the first place, or have the child but bring it up so well that it adds more to the world than it detracts from it. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 14, 2009 7:00:56 GMT
You can't limit how many children people can have, that is absurd! Perhaps this subject is more appropriate when we are talking about countries outside the UK. Third world countrys are of course a huge problem as birth control is apparently not the first thing on people's minds, and they really do not have the resources to provide for their child. But it's the number of people living UK-type lifestyles that is threatening the planet, not the number of people living Third World lifestyles. And it is the number of people living UK-type lifestyles that people like David Attenborough rightly say needs to be controlled - ideally, through changing it into something equally comfortable but more sustainable (lower carbon, lower waste), and through a _voluntary_ reduction in birth rates - by increasing through education the number of people like Graham and me, disinclined to have children partly because of the effect of overpopulation (by people living consumer lifestyles) on the environment. Yes, that definitely needs sorting, ideally through better education of such people. We're talking physical numbers of people living western-style consumer lifestyles, now and in the future. They're only after as good a lifestyle as we have - and it's unfair that we should be better off than them through luck of where we were born. It's true that allowing someone to move from the developing world to the developed world turns them into a consumer and increases their ecological footprint, but the answer isn't to shut them out and keep ourselves as a lucky elite allowed to life an unsustainable consumer lifestyle. Nor is the answer to turn the developing world into consumer countries like ours - which would be fair in the sense of making us equal, but drive the last nails into the planet's coffin. The only solution is to change our lifestyles (in terms of how we consume and how we breed) into ones that the whole world can take up sustainably. It has been demonstrated that improving the roads willy-nilly just increases the number of cars on the roads and the amount people drive. At some point the new roads become congested and even more roads are needed. In general, road-building is not a sustainable solution. But I agree with you to some extent about bypasses. Cars should never be allowed into towns and cities if those towns and cities are not their destination. There should always be ways to go past without going through. Ideally consumers would change their habits through concern for the environment alone, recycle voluntarily and put pressure on retailers to change by buying things with minimal packaging. Ideally they would choose not to drive in congested areas, and buy cars with low fuel consumption. But sadly they don't. They need financial incentives/deterrents, and they need councils looking over their shoulder, or they (many of them) won't do their bit. Ask not what your planet can do for you, but what you can do for your planet... Martin |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Apr 14, 2009 7:56:16 GMT
I'm never sure why people would want more than 2-3 children. I'm not up on the benefits thing, is it a case of the government makes it easy to have lots of children, or that people just don't have any personal responsibility when it comes to sex?
|
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Apr 14, 2009 18:34:39 GMT
Must say I disagree with the general idea behind this sentiment. The planet is not threatened by people being generally freer, healthier, wealthier, having access to better education, medical care, living in conditions of social, political and religious diversity and peace, enjoying the benefits of better medical technology, and the vast amount of art and culture made possible by liesure which is, in turn, made possible by economic wealth.
The planet IS threatened when large swaths of humanity are deprived these things and live in conditions which foster war, division, poverty, superstitions, stereotypes and all sorts of other ills.
To answer the question:
It is interesting to discuss the merits and demerits of having children. It is interesting to consider what is best for each of us as individuals and to contemplate the general effect that child bearing or the lack thereof has on society and the planet as a whole.
It is not right, however, for any of us to attempt to justify compulsory population control - to tell other people how many, if at all, children they can or cannot have.
If anything, to support of policy of population control is the moral equivalent of supporting Hilter and the Nazi's policies whereby mothers were to breed pure Aryans for the fatherland.
It doesn't matter wheather we're doing it do "save the planet," out of love for other species or because we believe that there ought to be a certain number of blond, blue eyed super humans on Earth - all compulsory control of population violates the right of each person to enter into voluntary associations with others and undertake common endeavors with them - endeavors which are the private business of those peoples.
Can arguments be given and proofs be made as to how excess rates of childbirth are detrimental to families and societies? Yes.
But none of these arguments has a greater weight then the detriment that State control of population has on societies - because such control ultimately treats people like cattle to be hearded and not like human beings with rights, with feelings, with lives of their own to live.
I sometimes wish it were possible to discuss interesting subjects like the desirability of having children without the discussion becoming a matter of laws and state policy.
It is very interesting to hear different views on this subject and to contemplate how these views impact our own lives.
It is not interesting nor good to consider that some of these views ought to be enforced as policy.
EDIT:
Again - I disagree.
This is Malthus, and Malthus was refuted ages ago - yet people still seem to treat his ideas with respect, even though they are so patently absurd.
Just how do we "know" that the planet "cannot sustain everyone on it living as we do in the developed world?"
Have we ever even TRIED it?
Hong Kong is a small swath of land with no great mineral resources and no great armies. It seems to fit the definition of a Malthusian nightmare Earth - huge burgeoning population with no resources - and yet the standard of living in Hong Kong is very high compared to other parts of the world where population density is lower, where there are more resources available for use, and where there is simply more space.
Why?
Because Hong Kong has greater economic freedom for the individual than many of these other places that ostensibly COULD BE better off but are not.
This is an empirical example.
The theoretical proof for the wrong headedness of this idea that higher population rates mean that at some point we won't have "enough" for everybody and that some will necessarily have to live richly while others suffer poverty is that wealth is completely totally independent from population - it is dependent on economics, and more precisely on economic freedom.
Where there is economic freedom; where people are free to interact and pursue their own goals and associate voluntarily, there is higher division of labor, specialization, innovation and ultimately general weatlh. With this higher wealth, there is "more for everyone to go around."
This is what higher rates of marginal productivity are all about - and they have NOTHING to do with population and everything to do with economic freedom.
True, resources are scarce - but they are not finite (just as they are not infinite) and the economizing of resources that takes place under a system of economic freedom allows for greater levels of productivity.
This is why it was possible for the population of the industrialized world to rise so dramatically over the past hundred to two hundred years WITHOUT causing mass poverty, hunger and disease - but on the contrary - with a rising standard of living in all categories (liesure, health, education etc etc).
Those places on Earth where there is little economic freedom do not enjoy higher rates of productivity and thus suffer general poverty.
But it is a mistake to think that these people suffer poverty because there are too many of them.
They suffer poverty because they are not free.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 14, 2009 18:48:29 GMT
It is very interesting to hear different views on this subject and to contemplate how these views impact our own lives. It is not interesting nor good to consider that some of these views ought to be enforced as policy. Did you even read the other posts in this thread, Pete? No-one here is advocating enforced population control, and nor does the Optimum Population Trust, which is the subject of the news item at the start of the thread. We are arguing for the population to be reduced through voluntary action by individuals when they understand the negative impact of too large a global population, not just on nature but on future generations of human beings - by appealing to their consciences. Western lifestyles are unsustainable because if everyone on the planet led them - or even if the number of people who lead them now continue to lead them - it will very likely lead to an impoverishment of the environment, primarily though not only through climate change - and an end to all the things you like about our way of life - peace, freedom, etc. - within a few generations. You can only justify continuing to live as we do now in the west, in terms of consumption and reproduction, if you don't care about future generations of human beings _or_ nature. Or, I suppose, if you don't accept the science of man-made climate change. Because the planet doesn't have sufficient grazing land to produce the quantity of meat that we eat in the west, scaled up for the total number of people on the planet. It barely has enough for the small proportion of the planet's population eating meat at the moment. Likewise fish stocks. Likewise the amount of waste we produce. If everyone in the world produced the rubbish we in the west produced, consider how much worse this would be. And the CO2 emissions are already above safe limits - imagine if everyone had the same carbon footprint we in the developed world have. We could try it by chopping down the last remaining forests, turning them to desert through overgrazing, and prove it that way. Hong Kong isn't self-sufficent. It's not a closed system. You have to factor in all the agricultural land and water/marine resource used to support it. When you do that, you find that if everyone on the planet consumed resources like a citizen of Hong Kong, you would need several planets to support its consumer needs. Unlike Hong Kong, the Earth as a whole is a closed system. The examples you give of blind free trade leading to prosperity are also misleading, because they cannot take account of long-term effects of pollution. Only in recent decades have we learnt what damage has been done to human health and the environment from industrialisation without scientific checks. We're trying to undo the damage done by aspects of the industrial revolution - but we don't find out the problems until a lot of the damage has been done - some irreversible. It's not Malthus - it's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - today's scientists - and the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change - today's economists - who are realising the scale of the problem. If even after being educated on the science of the problem people still had to be _forced_ to act responsibly, _forced_ to consider the environment and future generations when choosing how many children to have, what sort of car to drive and how often, and what products to consume, the human race probably isn't worth saving. I choose to believe in people's better nature, that once they appreciate how unsustainably we are living now in the developed world, they will make the changes voluntarily, and thereby the human race will _deserve_ to continue to live in peace and freedom. And those who don't have a better nature - well, there has to be some financial penalty so they don't gain at the expense of those who are making an effort, and that's where government has a role to play. Many responsible companies in the UK _support_ tougher government regulation of companies that cause environmental damage, because they rightly don't want to be left at a competitive disadvantage after going to the expense of cleaning up their own acts. We're at early stages in spreading a true understanding of environmental science to the general population, so my hopes remain high of people freely choosing to do what's right. But we don't have forever. Martin |
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,487
|
Post by Hero on Apr 15, 2009 6:40:48 GMT
I'm really looking forward to being a parent myself, as George and I are starting a family this year. I hope Earth prepares itself for the possibility of another 'me' roaming around  . |
|
|
|
Post by grahamthomson on Apr 15, 2009 8:22:44 GMT
I certainly wouldn't advocate "enforcing" people to limit their offspring, but, as Martin says provide enough education to make it a sensible and informed choice. Think of it like the recommended units of alcohol one is recommended to drink in any given time period. So, as you would try not to have more than 1-2 units of alcohol per day, try not to have more than 1-2 children per lifetime. True enough, no one likes to be told what to do, and yet, as law abiding citizens we do that every moment of every day without thinking or cause for concern. And with that in mind, let's look at things from a purely biological point of view. There's that old phrase, "survival of the fittest." Imagine if we removed a few social assumptions. In the UK, we assume that no one will rob us of our food as we leave the supermarket, or set up camp in our homes while we're out at the cinema. Despite this apparent "hoodie" culture the media tell us we live in, most of the population respect each others boundaries. But what if these boundaries didn't exist, just as they don't in the wild. If, as "wild" humans, we spent our time having lots of babies, what would happen to them? They'd be killed off by competing humans. The parents wouldn't have the means or the resources to let them thrive or protect them. The weakest members would be picked off like gazelles in the plains. I don't mean to sound so brutal but after all, humans are just animals who are embarrassed about being naked. So, really, nature is already telling us to limit our output of spawn. Another thing to consider is The Future. In 40 years time, when we're much older, frail and retired and our own children are grown up with children of their own, the UK will have close to 80 million inhabitants. That's another two "London's" worth of people. The rest of the world will be similarly overpopulated. Is that a future we are collectively striving for? Dwindling resources, little room, no space? Our education and healthcare systems could collapse, our energy requirements would spiral out of control. Personally, that's my worst nightmare; especially when I'm 70! Ken says, in jest, "I hope Earth prepares itself for the possibility of another 'me' roaming around ." I say no! (Not to Ken and George reproducing, good luck to them I say!) Our planet is not the one that should adapt to us and our way, we should be the ones to adapt. We're the ones who can, after all. |
|
chrisl
Empty
I still think its the 1990s - when I joined TMUK
Posts: 1,097
|
Post by chrisl on Apr 15, 2009 10:32:32 GMT
Post-third trimester abortions / contraceptives in cheap alcohol / Bentham's workhouse = food for thought. For all my leftist leanings I'm getting really pissed off with the culture of "me me me me me me" don't give a shit lets live on benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Apr 15, 2009 10:36:31 GMT
Post-third trimester abortions / contraceptives in cheap alcohol / Bentham's workhouse = food for thought. For all my leftist leanings I'm getting really pissed off with the culture of "me me me me me me" don't give a shit lets live on benefits. Maybe the benefit system as a whole is a problem. Does it really make it that much easier to have lots of kids though? I have no idea. |
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Apr 15, 2009 15:05:17 GMT
That's funny, because the heaviest pollution and the greatest damage to the environment was done in the East - namely in countries like the former USSR, Eastern Europe, and in China where there was no political and economic freedom and government controlled everything and owned all of the means of productions, forcing farmers off their lands, building huge industrial dinosaurs, deciding that entire countries are going to be coal dependent, building public housing out of asbestos, taking over land and resources and then using them without any thought about the consequences. These same said areas of the world are now growing progressively cleaner and environmentally minded as private property rights are restored and the government gets out of the way. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you believe in climate change and everything to do with whether or not a country respects private property rights or not. Private property and privatization are the path towards a greener world. The more government intervenes, controls and regulates - the more pollution there will be. Remember that one of the biggest ways to combat pollution is by scientific innovation. Companies which support government regulation and support penalizing their competitors are stifling innovation and making it more difficult for competition to bring forth outcomes that are both cost-efficient and environmentally friendly. I think this is melodramatic, and unnecessarily so. People are imperfect, and life is imperfect. We like to think sometimes that it's up to us to save the world or destroy it - but it's not. Change - change for the better - takes place incrementally and often in ways that we cannot predict. It's foolish to think that some intergovernmental agency plan is the be all and end all and that everyone on the planet just needs to familiarize themselves with 10 points of some plan to save everybody. Finally - if we're going to criticize the west, the west ought to get criticized where it really counts: for pulling the strings in "international" institutions to further the corporate interests of their own companies at the expense of the competition who, while they're at it, these "international" organizations are going to label as being big time pollutors, having lax financial regulations and commiting all sorts of other sins against "humanity." When in fact it is China that is making the most stunning progress in economics and human rights, and when it is Russia where the greatest change for the better has taken place in the last couple of decades. When the day comes that "law abiding citizens" go about obeying the law "every moment of every day without thinking or cause for concern" then we will live in a fascist society. Democratic citizens must be both law-abiding AND thinking and concerned. If you don't obey the law, then no matter how thoughtful you are - you'll lead to the "wild" uncivilized anarchy that you mentioned Graham - but if you ONLY obey the law and don't think about it and aren't conerned about it - then you'll lead to a wild uncivilized tyranny which is no better. All the more reason why we should be very careful, I think, to not allow ourselves to get into a frenzy over some reports and give away our freedoms because we think that the Earth will fall into the Sun (so to speak) in a couple of years. It's alarmism. Governments love crises because it is crisis that allows government to take more power and control people more. I think that this is a likely scenario - but why is this a "nightmare?" I lived through the collapse of the education and healthcare systems in communist Poland - and thank goodness they collapsed. They sucked. Now people have access to better education, to a variety of different schools with different educational approaches, to the chance to study overseas. They also have access to hospitals with state of the art technology and doctors who are well trained and care for their patients. If a system is bad - it should die. The UK, like most western countries, is overburdened by a pension system that is destined to go bust and is operated in the same exact way that Bernie Madoff operated his ponzy scheme. Although - there is one sense in which Madoff's ponzy scheme was better than the government pension system: namely - Madoff could sweet talk you - but he couldn't FORCE you to pay taxes and pay into the system. Government unfortunately can force you and if their sweet talk doesn't work - it does force you. What needs to happen is that the system has to be made voluntary. Old folks who are now dependent on pensions must be taken care of - but we need to save the next generation from ending up penniless and in debt and with low pensions after forking their earnings over to a broken system. I don't see why it is a "nightmare" to think that all of this will go bust. It couldn't happen sooner. The problem is - in my view - quite clear: "Me me me me me" is fine as long as you take care of YOU by taking care of OTHERS. That is to say - when you serve the needs and desires of others, you also maintain yourself. That's the basic nature of market exchange. You sell your labor or your product or your time or whatever and other people benefit from it and you in turn benefit financially and are able to turn around and help yourself to whatever it is you want out of life. "Me me me me me" is not fine when you take care of YOU by robbing OTHERS via the government. That really is the problem - it's government taking from Peter to give to Paul (and then taking a cut from Paul anyways). There need to be limits on what people are allowed to do and those limits need to be morality based. People can't kill, steal, lie, cheat and bring harm to others. But this rule applies to government as well - at least it should. Sadly, it doesn't - since governments constantly kill, steal, like cheat and bring harm to others on a daily basis. It's kind of like the Somali Pirate scourge we have now - essentially - how are the Somali pirates different from CUTA? Somali Pirates just don't call themselves "President" or "Prime Minister" and don't have stacks of papers for seafarers to fill out with "import duties" and other tarrifs and taxes listed. But essentially - other than their lack of titles and papers and stamps - they do exactly what every other government does - only they do it with less loss of life, more efficiency and at a cheaper cost... after all - they are private rather than public pirates In any event - having kids is a decision that I think people ought to make on the basis of: 1) Have you found the man or woman of your dreams? 2) Are you in love? 3) Do you want lots of little kids running around because you have fun playing and teaching and raising them? These kinds of questions are way more important than "how will this impact the planet?" or "will the birth of my child bring down the moon and cause the universe to explode due to over-population?" Who is "we?" Where there is private property, there is always a multiplicity of owners and multiple uses of resources. The notion that all forrests would just up and be cut down is ludicrous. WHY would anyone want to do that? It would COST TOO MUCH and the returns would be minimal compared to how much it would cost. In reality, if we had private ownership of all forrest lands - then some lands would be used for logging, other lands would be bought up by lovers of teh environment and be sealed off as nature reserves and other lands would be used for a million other purposes. My family have planted over 200 trees on my farmland over the past 15 years. We've cut down maybe 20 trees in that time. Seems to me those are some pretty good proportions. If I could make a ton of money by just cutting down all my trees - believe me - I'd do it. But guess what? I can't. Just like the idea that unemployment can be solved by giving everybody a shovel to dig a hole is false because employment needs to be backed by real and not nominal productivity- so to is the idea that all the trees would just be cut down false - they wouldn't. Captain Planet is a bad cartoon on many levels - but mainly because the motives and behavior it assigns to Captain Planet's nemesises are all stereotypes that have as much to do with reality as the stereotype of jews as people who run the world from a secret mountain resort in the himalayas where they are given their orders from UFO flying little green men Pete |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 15, 2009 15:55:31 GMT
You seem to be living in a different world from me, Pete, and that could be close to the truth since perspectives of the world are very different depending on which country you live in. While I have to give you the benefit of the doubt that your views may be reasonable based on the experiences of your country, I can assure you that they do not describe reality in the UK at all - the environment has only improved here through regulation. Our cities were choking with smog until the Clean Air Act came in and forced them to clean up. Industry only improves its performance when pushed to by regulation, because being green costs them money in the short term. Those companies who do want to innovate and develop green technologies are grateful for the regulations because it creates a level playing field with their competitors to avoid rewarding those who don't care how much damage they do.
We tried _not_ having regulation of industry for a couple of centuries. It wrecked the place, and the poor workforce. Much better now, with legal protection of worker health/safety and the environment, minimum wage, etc.
I could go on on this subject for hours but I doubt I'd get any closer to convincing you as you are clearly not a fan of government as a general principle, and may have good reasons for that (while both my day job and much of my free time are dedicated to environmental protection through government, in partnership with responsible industries and non-governmental organisations).
To end on a friendly note, have some karma for those trees you planted.
PS I have used the term 'western' in my posts loosely. What I always meant by 'western' was societies that have gone down the path of first industrialisation and then consumerism following the model pioneered in the west.
Martin
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,487
|
Post by Hero on Apr 15, 2009 17:27:14 GMT
There was a time when I didn't want children. I think in my case, the changes and advances I went through over the last 10 or so years changed my perspective. Pete, your 3 numbered points are good there I think. I hope the paragraph after that was'nt prompted by what I previously said. As pointed out by Graham below I was'nt serious. Ken says, in jest, "I hope Earth prepares itself for the possibility of another 'me' roaming around ." I say no! (Not to Ken and George reproducing, good luck to them I say!) Our planet is not the one that should adapt to us and our way, we should be the ones to adapt. We're the ones who can, after all. That's why I said it in jest mate. My kids (not clones) will have thier own direction and character. A chip off the old block maybe, but not a block itself. ===KEN |
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Apr 18, 2009 8:22:34 GMT
Food vouchers really don't work either. I remember working in a grocery store in Michigan when I was in college and people with food vouchers mainly bought one hundred dollars woth of potato chips, chocollate - junk food basically.
I actually have nothing against people who scam the system to get "free" stuff for themselves and their children.
Since government steals from the people through taxes - why can't the people take some of that money back by scamming the government and using its' perks?
If government stopped taxing people and got rid of all these perks, people would just be able to keep their own money and focus on helping the truly needy.
But - in this situation - I really don't blame lower income families from scamming the government and other folks for trying to take advantage of the system.
Why should regular people be angels while the government lies and steals? Better for them to do their part and over-burden the system, make it look ridiculous - and benefit themselves somewhat after having to have forked over so much tax money.
It's also a kind of vicious cycle - shoddy government schools (which are compulsory) keep a vast majority of people OUT of the workforce and brainwash them for several years often times making them unintelligent, inarticulate and ignorant of the world around them. Then suddenly, these folks have to go find jobs - in an economy where the government has a monopoly on money, and where government basically regulates every detail of economic life - in other words, you have all these people who spent at least 10 years if not more in a government school learning nothing and being kept from the real world suddenly tossed into a world where government has limited most of their opportunities.
I don't much blame them for going on the dole, and I don't much blame folks who work in low paying jobs (and still have to pay taxes - even VAT for example) for scamming the system as much as possible.
We should blame the government and the system - not the people who try to take back a little bit of what has been taken from them.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Apr 18, 2009 11:19:40 GMT
We should blame the government and the system - not the people who try to take back a little bit of what has been taken from them. Well the way the system currently works is they if you put stuff in it is impossible to get any benefits out, if you don't put anything in then you get tons out of it. Obviously that is a gross generalisation, but the point remains. |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Apr 18, 2009 12:09:52 GMT
Good luck to you Ken! It's the best thing you'll ever do. My little one is the best thing in my world, and he regularly asks to watch Transformers Animated, good boy! Maybe the benefit system as a whole is a problem. Does it really make it that much easier to have lots of kids though? I have no idea. I think the benefits system has been designed to reward the lazy and suck dry the money from all who work for a living. Obviously there are always people who lose their job or who are disabled who deserve to be looked after by the system, and just manage to survive. All too often lazy cretins reap the rewards. Hi! I'm a lazy cretin sucking dry the money from all who work for a living, depending on benefits to survive! Have we met? Can I help you? -Ralph |
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Apr 18, 2009 12:53:17 GMT
I would just like to go back to the subject of global warming for a moment and point to a GREAT article from NASA that makes my point. A quote from the article: The entire article: www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.htmlSo there you have it folks - even government admits that government usually achieves results that run counter to its' aims and that regulation meant to help the environment ends up harming it. Pete |
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 18, 2009 16:29:19 GMT
So there you have it folks - even government admits that government usually achieves results that run counter to its' aims and that regulation meant to help the environment ends up harming it. Where does it admit 'usually'? It seems you are happy to accept what government says when it supports your worldview but believe it is lying whenever it doesn't. What the quote says is very true, and I could have told you the same thing. To put it in context, unregulated industry resulted in excessive combustion emissions, which (even without abating the sulphur and particulate matter) has a huge net global warming effect. Scientific research (funded by government money) _first_ learnt that sulphur dioxide and particles damaged people's health, and government regulation has forced industry to reduce those emissions, which has resulted in better air quality and better public health. Scientific research (again funded by government money) then led gradually to an understanding about global warming, which is caused in large part by carbon dioxide emissions from combustion sources. And yes, the effect is slightly worse because we are putting less particles into the atmosphere for reasons of public health. _Now_ we are trying to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions to fix that problem too. Without research funded by taxes, and without government regulation, we wouldn't even know about either problem. People's health would still be affected by sulphur and particulates, and carbon dioxide emissions would still lead to global warming. The particulates would slow the global warming down a bit, but that would be offset by higher carbon dioxide emissions in total due to our ignorance of the problem, so it would actually happen faster. The fact that we don't learn everything at once about the way the world works, and that sometimes we do things for a good reason that have a negative secondary effect in an area we don't understand yet, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to learn anything, or try to address harm that we know we are doing. Please, Pete, explain to me how an unregulated free market without government showing any leadership, funding any research or passing any laws would have led to us understanding the damage done by industry to human health and the environment to the extent that we do now, and reduced those impacts to the extent that has been done to date. As you have demonstrated, government is even funding and publishing research that scrutinises the effectiveness of its own measures. Would a company in the private sector fund _and publish_ research that called into question the effectiveness of its own products? Zero regulation would mean emissions of sulphur and particulates would continue, and so would emissions of carbon dioxide, and we would have health problems and global warming. Regulation means the first problem has been addressed, and we're working on the second one (by moving towards low carbon energy sources, _not_ by removing measures put in place to protect human health). Martin |
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Apr 18, 2009 17:02:58 GMT
I will give it a try - but first allow me to please comment on some of your other remarks and then return to this question.
Also - please forgive me for addressing these issues in no particular order - anyways - here goes:
Why do you assume that higher carbon dioxide emissions would continue unabated without regulation? This is like assuming that steam would continue to be used to propell ships, or that electricity would never replace oil in lamps or as a motive force for - say - trains.
People did not start exploiting coal to destroy the environment, but as a means to multiple ends which could be termed "the satisfaction of human needs and desires."
The economy is a complex mechanism and scientific progress is one its' most important features, because it is scientific progress that allows for the lowering of the costs of production, the rise in marginal productivity and the rise in supply capacity which satisfies the needs of the people.
When government steps in to regulate what method of fuel is used, fake incentives are created - I will remind you that coal was in use for such a long time precisely because government (by which I mean the State, and not any particular cabinet) took it upon itself to subsidize the industry, lay tarrifs on competitors, give preferential treatment to it and generally protect it against market forces - ostensibly in the interest of miners and labor unions, as well as what was termed the "national interest" in numerous coal mining countries.
The effect of such policy was to prolong the artificial mining of coal even when market forces would not sustain such activities. This situation continues to date in numerous countries where coal mines would have long ago gone bankrupt if they were not supported by the government.
The same can be said for numerous other heavy industries which fit the definition of a classical "polluting industry."
If the market had been allowed to function, these heavy industries would have gone the way ot the horse and buggy and been replaced by more efficient means of energy production.
So again - government is part of the problem.
It's kind of like government policy on smoking. On the one hand, government spends millions to alert the public with regard to the perils of smoking - while on the other hand government provides millions in subsidies to tobacco growers and often times levies tarrifs and duties to protect the domestic tobacco industry.
Government is always at odds with itself.
This is not true. Coal has been, historically, one of the most heavily regulated industries and one of the most protected by government.
I find it amusing always that, whenever industry functions "responsibly" then it is thanks to government regulations - however - whenever it turns out that an industry functions in some way that has some negative effect - then, dispite historically being heavily regulated and often nationalized - it is suddenly a failure of "unregulated industry."
Scientific research funded by government money comes at the cost of alternative uses that this money could have been put to if it were left in the voluntary market place. It's nice that the government discovered that it was wrong about something - but we must always consider that such discoveries are made at the cost of something else. Namely of resources going towards things which people actually want and will therefore voluntarily pay for.
Now, I shall try to return to your concluding question - which I'll repost just so I can hopefully get it right:
Every time a product or service offered on the free market turns out to have a negative effect on those who use it, to have some kind of defect, to not live up to its' promise, demand for this product or service falls because it is not in the self-interest of people to purchase this product or service.
Under a free market system of full respect for private property rights, third party externalities - which is, in effect what pollution is would be handled the same way as the market handles a number of other complex questions (for example questions like how much bread and milk is produced and how it is distributed amongst people and provided to them at lowest cost).
In other words - rather than one government monopoly environmental policy, we would probably have thousands of mini-policies coming from local communities of property owners banned together for their common good.
Zoning laws would keep factories and heavy industry at a distance, and public demand for environmentally conscious products and goods would reward those producers and service providers which come up with the most environmentally friendly ways to provide their product at the lowest cost.
Different communities would have different solutions - some would probably question the premise that global warming even exists while others would embrace green technology and a general healthy life style.
But ultimately - I think your question is somewhat loaded. Why? Because you presume that an environmentally conscious lifestyle is preferable to every other lifestyle and ask that I show how a free market would lead to a world where everyone is environmentally minded.
This is like asking the free market to lead to a world where everyone is skinny, or everyone wears sunglasses, or everyone likes thes same kind of music (which someone deams as being "the best music").
The market always leads to diverse outcomes because people are a diverse bunch.
I understand that you can argue that global warming is something which endangers everyone, independent of their preference, and therefore demands coercion for the greater good - but I fail to see how coercion has done more good than harm up to this point?
I also do not accept the premise that global warming is more of a danger than tyranny of one group of people over another.
Be that as it may, EVEN IF we accept that global warming is a real threat - I contend that the solution to it is technological progress towards what is called 'green technology' or a 'green economy.'
However, this green economy needs to be reality based. So - for one thing - let's even the playing field.
Rather than government subsidizing research into green technology or the like - government ought to STOP subsidizing heavy industry and lift all protective tarrifs which help industries like steel, coal etc. Government ought to let these industries go bankrupt and be replaced by something else if that is what the market calls for. Government should allow the workers in these industries to be dispersed, retrained, and all for the free competition between green and "traditional" industries.
You might say though, that all that would happen would be that the "polluting industries" would move to those parts of the world where polluting is cheaper. But first - this is already happening and to end it would be to destroy the livelihood of millions, and second - why can't we allow those countries now experiencing rapid economic growth to solve their own problems, to come to their own conclusions about how best to deal with pollution and the environment?
Why assume that there is one policy approach that is right?
I suppose it all comes down to whether or not you truly believe that the threat posed by pollution is imminent - and that the solution offered by government is capable of fixing the problem.
I do not believe the threat is imminent (aka that 60 foot tidal waves are going to destroy cities) nor do I believe that government would be in any way capable of fixing rather than making the problem worse.
What would a free market do?
I don't know - no one can know for sure. Advocates of government like to pretend that they know what government regulations will do - but time and again it turns out that they don't know either, that their regulations have effects which are unforeseen or oppossite to their intentions.
Probably not a conclusive answer. But an attempt.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Apr 18, 2009 18:03:52 GMT
Government is always at odds with itself. That statement of yours is very true, at least in a democracy, because the people it represents want different things. Government is faced with many competing priorities, and different parts of government have different jobs to do, different interests to look after, different lobby groups to respond to - it is being pulled in all directions. I would in some senses like to be able to choose where my taxes go - I would pay the taxes that go towards health, education, environmental protection, aid to developing countries, etc., but I might not pay taxes that go to causes that I don't support. That wouldn't be more democratic though, because rich people would then have more say in government than poor people - it would be as if the number of votes you cast at elections were proportional to what you can afford to pay. (And in a world without taxes, government could do nothing, votes would be worthless and the poorest would have no say in anything, having no money and no vote.) As it is, my taxes go on some things I consider worthwhile and some I consider less so - and some that work against one another. It is not an ideal system and has many inefficiencies. But at least it is based on the principle (in theory, though executed very imperfectly in practice) that everyone has an equal say regardless of their lot in life. Each of us, in his arrogance, might wish he could impose his own will on the world - you, Pete, might like the power to abolish taxes and government regulation of industry, while I might like to impose tighter sanctions on today's generation (more environmental science education in schools, more green incentives to industry, taxes on pollution - but not laws restricting how many children you can have, or banning anything outright for the consumer) to keep the world nice for future generations - but it wouldn't be fair if we did have that much say - even if one or other of us happens to be right in what we think, and the world would be a better place if we had our way. So, we have many competing views reflected in government. Where government has _not_ been in the business of protecting the environment, it _may_ have sometimes made matters worse, while seeking to promote other interests, good or bad. I believe environmental regulation would still be necessary today in a major way regardless of whether government intervened in the past for non-environmental reasons in industrial development, but I don't deny it ever having happened. I do deny that there was environmental regulation back then though. Do you think that it should be an _informed_ free choice on the part of the consumer, or does it not matter provided it is a free choice? Do you think the people paying for things should know as much as possible about the chemicals in the product they are buying - not just whether it is safe for them, but also whether they will persist in the environment, lead to harm to wildlife and future generations, or cause climate change - before they choose what to buy? Will market forces alone lead to scientific research being done to establish these facts, bearing in mind that it will make the costs of the products go up? How will consumers know whether what it says on the packaging is true? What if the defect doesn't cause any disadvantage to the person who buys it, but rather harms people in other countries or people who haven't been born yet? Would market forces eliminate those products? Who would warn the buyer that it caused such harm? Again, without trading/advertising standards regulation, what would prevent false claims being made by the manufacturer? What about workers? Who would look out for their interests in the absence of occupational health and safety regulators? I'm not saying all employers would treat them badly, but there would inevitably be some who would cut corners in order to cut costs. Again, where is the quality assurance on environmentally friendly claims, in the absence of government involvement? Would you really leave safety of nuclear power stations, burning of hazardous waste, discharges of waste liquids to rivers that feed into reservoirs, burial of waste where it may contaminate groundwater, and hygiene in kitchens of restaurants and the food industry, without minimum standards enforced by inspectors? We would all be at the mercy of the worst companies if they were free to do as they pleased in these areas. I agree with that, but can't see it happening without government subsidies to give green pioneers an incentive. There is a technology barrier to overcome before they can turn a profit, and they will develop too slowly without help. I certainly agree that any subsidies and protection for non-green technologies should stop, but don't see that as being enough. Established industries have too much of an advantage, because they are established. Because I consider it unforgivable for us as a species to make the same environmental mistakes twice. Once, through ignorance, fair enough. Twice, when the harm is known in advance, no. Future generations will think we were insane. Instead, those countries lagging behind us should be helped to develop in ways we might have chosen to develop if we knew then what we know now. That's not what the serious science is saying. But the serious science is saying that we can't leave it until the threat is imminent to reduce carbon dioxide levels, because then it will be too late for much of the world's agriculture, wildlife and human population. The damage we do now will have catastrophic effects in 50 years time. The unregulated free market just doesn't work with that sort of time lag. It may be that the politicians of the world _won't_ be able to get their act together in time. But I think that for those in power to _try_ is the only moral course open to them. Even if future generations look back and say they acted stupidly, at least they would look back and see that they did what they thought was best rather than closing their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears. Martin |
|
dyrl
Empty
Transforming robots are no match for combat waitresses from the future!
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by dyrl on Apr 18, 2009 21:29:15 GMT
Well, I think part of the matter might be that both of us have certain ideal states of being that we envision when discussing these problems. My ideal state of being is a world where people are free to chose, where all interaction is based onf voluntary consent, and where externalities are treated kind of the same as accidents of nature and the weather - that is to say, people prepare for them in a million different ways, but don't always succeed in fending them off. Your ideal state of being, if I understand you correctly, is a world where life is sustainable rather than self-destructive insofar as the progress of human civilization is planting the seeds of its' own ecological demise.
In fact, however, I cannot avoid taxes and you cannot avoid death - to put a spin on an old pun. Our ideal states will always remain just that, and just as I have to accept the existance of government as a fact, so to you must accept that no matter how green or conscious peopel get, the environment will still never be perfectly in harmony with human beings.
But, to address some of your specific points:
I disagree.
In fact, in a system of voluntary exchange - a free market - the only way that people can get rich is by serving the needs of the many. Since no one can force others to part with their money, people who want to make money and be wealthy can only do it by thinking of ways to fulfill the needs of their customers - to think of ways in which they will make the maximum amount of money at the lowest cost from the largest amount of people.
In contrast, political systems like democracy are always based on coercion - taxes are always compulsory. Furthermore, it is usually the case that the wealthy, through lobbying and financing of political parties and candidates, have a disproportionate amount of control over the government - which itself has a monopoly on force and coerces everyone else to give it their money.
So, I would say that you've got it upside down. In the free market, poor people have more power than in a political democracy because in a free market no body can force them to part with their time or money, whereas under government - even if it is democratic - the State exists to force those who are too poor to resist it into doing things against their will.
I think that what constitutes an "informed" free choice is a matter of speculation, and that what is of primary importance is that the choice is free. Generally, just about every choice we make in life is uninformed - but that is actually to our good.
Imagine how much time we'd have to spend if we wanted to be truly informed about everything? We'd have no time to focus on doing what we do best. Instead, we'd have to constantly study and always hesitate before making basic choices.
The free market, however, has generally tended to move human beings towards organizing themselves on the basis of the principle of division of labor. I don't need to be "informed" about how to make shoes, how to build cars, how to put up sky scrappers and how to create aspirin - other people can be "informed" about those subjects while I focus on doing what I do best. We exchange our goods and services that we are best at via the medium of currency, which itself is actually a commodity (not a simple medium of exchange that is not subject to market forces as most economists unfortunately seem to think).
It is always in the self-interest of those who are selling a product or a good to take care to be sure that it is of highest quality and that it does what it is meant to do, or what it is advertised to do. If it is found that the good or service does not do what it promises and is of bad quality - people will stop buying it.
Because there is market demand for information about goods and services that we are personally not informed about, there are consumer groups which spend time researching these subjects so that you and I don't have to always.
Naturally, nothing beats personal vigilance - but its' extent is a matter of individual choice.
There is always risk involved - but remember the risk of moral hazard that is inherent in situations when the government steps in to "inform" consumers and generally keep us "safe."
Banks, we were told, were all very safe since government guaranteed them and their loans. I would venture to say that had government not been in the business of guaranteeing things like banks and mortgages and whatnot then there would have been less toxic credit going about, because no one in their right mind would have been loaning excessive amounts of money had there not been government guarantees of banking and credit - just to give one example.
If the defect creates a third-party cost then there is a legitamite grievence there and it can be resolved through negotiating some kind of satisfactory solution for all parties involved.
However - in order to reach this solution, ownership and property must be clear. Unfortunately, government does not allow people to own airspace - therefore we have a mess in terms of who pays for air pollution and how to deal with it.
Government doesn't allow ownership of the oceans - so we have a mess in terms of who pays for water pollution and how to deal with it.
Government doesn't allow private ownership of rain forrests and large swaths of wilderness - so again - we have a mess in terms of who pays for what and how to deal with it.
The first sensible step to take then is the privatization of parks, oceans and the sale of airspace by government to the highest bidders. Once someone actual owns the sky - they'll have an interest in keep it clean and figure out some equitable way to do so - like charging the users of the sky space smog emmission fees or something. Again - there will probably be as many solutions to these problems as there are types of sandwiches or pizza flavors or clothing styles.
Occupational health and safety regulators are often times the main reason why workers are transformed into "the unemployed" because they do such a good job of making work expensive by compelling the employer to adhere to tons of red tape - that it becomes to expensive to higher anybody for the job.
In the end, workers have to look out for their interest and they can organize into unions or they can be smart as individuals and educate themselves.
Also, the premise that the onus has always got to be on someone else to look out for you is a bit preposterous.
Record of Private Market and Nuclear Power:
-No accidents
-Lots of cheap power
Record of Government and Nuclear Power:
-Chernobyl fallout
- Atomic bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima
Case closed.
I agree. However, I think "those in power" are the people - because I think the people are soveriegn. And ultimately, either the people will indeed get their act together and try to take the most moral course open to them - or not.
Pete
|
|
. 