What is more moral than actively safeguarding the livelihood of future generations - our children and their children? Conversely, what could be more morally bankrupt than willfully disregarding the potential perils they may face, heedless of the high risks that, if realized, could wreak unimaginable devastation upon their lives?
ha, the $64,000 question. Unfortunately future generations--especially in the distant future--count for virtually nothing in our current calculations. Nor is it clear why they should count for anything. This is related to the issue of future discounting in economics and the so-called nonidentity problem in philosophy. In terms of the future we can probably only do well by our immediate descendents--perhaps three or four generations out at the most. on edit: see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/
No ****. The more people on this planet more harm. More people more resources needed to sustain themselves. Limited resources plus continuation of over population gets you what?
debatable. Julian Simon called the human mind the "ultimate resource" -- the more people, the more brain power to solve our problems. Human quality of life has never been better than it is today. So no, "The more people on this planet more harm" is not necessarily a true statement.
I have posted the link to this article previously. Do We Consume Too Much? Discussions of the future of the planet are dominated by those who believe that an expanding world economy will use up natural resources and those who see no reasons, environmental or otherwise, to limit economic growth. Neither side has it right. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/06/do-we-consume-too-much/376877/
What do you mean not necessarily true? The impacts of human activity has caused damage to our ecosystem. We are in the verge of a mass extinction half of the species on earth will be at risk. What is the debate. Human quality of life has increased while our ecosystem has not. We continue to deplete our surroundings at an alarming rate.
His arguments is that human innovation through technology will help mitigate our reliance on finite resources. Over population has continued to cause more damage to our ecosystems. So yes more population on this earth will put more stress on our ecosystem regardless of our innovation and efficiency of technology.
What is debatable? Or are you over generalizing the terms. Because you can say anything is debatable literally.
I like to explore your view points on mark Sagoff’s work you posted above. It is one thing to just post a paper without explaining your thoughts on that said paper.
the paper is clearly evidence that the claim you made about resource use is debatable. Sagoff uses five different case illustrations to explore why resources use and consumption is not necessarily "harmful" (your term) to people; in fact, resource use and consumption improve the quality of life on the whole. Where Sagoff argues consumption is a bad thing is in terms of the character of people who are mindlessly consumer-oriented. Buying stuff simply to buy stuff, or for status. He argues that morally we should not be the kind of people who pursue trivial things--but that is a moral argument about people's character, not an argument that consumption harms people because of resource use and/or inevitable resource depletion. In so many words Sagoff offers a kind of Thoreauvian assessment of consumption: there is nothing inherently wrong about consumption--in fact we need to consume in order to stay alive. But as Thoreau said, "Our lives are frittered away by detail." That is the "problem of consumption" according to Sagoff. Not resource use per se.
Harm relates to environment. Our ecosystem is at risk. Finite resources includes our ecosystem. Overpopulation is a problem that exists. We as human has increased our quality of life at the expense of our ecosystem. Like I posted above His arguments is that human innovation through technology will help mitigate our reliance on finite resources. Over population has continued to cause more damage to our ecosystems. So yes more population on this earth will put more stress on our ecosystem regardless of our innovation and efficiency of technology. Do you disagree? If so why?
environment cannot be harmed--environment does not have any interests, any more than a rock does. It makes no sense to say we have harmed a rock, or to assert that it is somehow in a rock's interests not to be ground down into smaller-sized rocks for our driveway. So if by "harm relates to environment" you're implying environment can be harmed, I disagree. Harm is a human evaluative term that applies for the most part to humans. We can speak of changing the environment, altering the environment, affecting the environment, but it doesn't really make sense to speak of harming the environment. "ecosystem" is a conceptual term that serves as a heuristic for human understanding of the natural world. There is no object that is properly an "ecosystem"--you cannot go out and touch an ecosystem, or define an ecosystem. That doesn't mean ecosystem as a concept lacks meaning, but it does imply we run the risk of reification of the ecosystem concept if we take it too literally. As such, it is difficult to say an "ecosystem is at risk," ontologically--but I do understand your point. it is debatable whether a resource is ever "finite." Human history demonstrates the human ability to continue to tap previously inaccessible resources as time goes on. And when resources have run out, or been depleted (e.g., whale oil), alternatives have been developed or discovered. So while "finite resources" sounds like it makes sense, in practice there are very few if any finite resources. That is part of the argument that Sagoff reviews in his article cited above. this is also debatable: both for reasons explained above, but also for the conceptual problem of "over"population. There are demographers who argue no such problem exists. Joel Cohen's book on earth's human carrying capacity is something I've recommended in the past on this question. in some cases our high quality of life has preserved nature and ecosystems, and have restored species, habitat, nature, and ecosystems. It goes both ways. It is a truism to say that wealthy societies by and large do better at protecting nature than do poorer societies or developing nations. yes, I disagree, for many of the reasons I've just given. Wealth by and large is better at protecting the environment than poverty.
You are arguing semantics. We are losing forests at an alarming rate. Same for species on our planet are going extinct at an alarming rate. This is what I am referring. These are influenced by our ever expanding presence on this earth. Or do you deny this
Thus I said "our children and their children". It's hard to feel more than 2 generation forward, but I think most of us with children can easily and emotionally related to 1 to 2 generation forward. 3 to 4 is even a stretch. What we do today is definitely morally impactful to us and our children and their children. That's a solid story in human history.
