Freetrader@aol.com resumes (quoting Porkloin@aol.com):
"Again, if this is true, then it would be good to eliminate large random collections of humans. Perhaps mass murderers and serial killers are doing a favor for the human race. (Especially serial killers of females, because this eliminates not only the female victims but also any offspring they would have produced.) Perhaps this is the rationale behind the mass shootings at schools and other places."
No, I'm not assuming it is VIEWED the same, but rather that it IS the same with respect to the bad results you cited (polluting, consuming resources). If the benefit of aborting fetuses is to prevent them from later polluting and consuming resources, as you imply above, then some of those already born should also be "aborted" in order to achieve the same benefit.
And since the abortions are totally random, irrespecitve of the good which some of these fetuses would have produced later, then random "abortions" of born humans should also produce the same benefits.
As long as you insist that healthy fetuses will all eventually become a net negative, because of their eventual pollution and consuming of resources, then you must say the same about humans already born, and these latter are just as fit for elimination as the former.
You have not shown how those already here should get a free lunch, while those en route are fit for elimination. Yes, it's always easy to side with the group to which you belong yourself, and also to favor the strong over the weak. But the easy way is not necessarily the right way.
You keep trying to tapdance around this problem, but you have not given a reason why those already born should be judged by a different standard than the unborn. You cannot religiously defend the one group as having a sacred right to life while writing off the other as expendable.
I think you could make the argument that those already born have a stronger claim to a right to life than the unborn. But this is a difference of degree. And your logic would require that random annihilations, if not desirable at the present time, will soon become desirable, when the world population increases beyond a certain point. The desirability of random eliminations of fetuses would logically come shortly before that of random eliminations of born humans.
Rubbish! You know that virtually all healthy fetuses will eventually have experiences and interactions with future people just as adults today have and will mean just as much to other humans as present people do. By your logic, we should plunder the planet today, because only the life existing today has value, while any future life is only a "mere potentiality."
In other words, because born people have a general perception that born people have an absolute right to live whereas unborn people do not, therefore it must be so. This is how we decide who has rights and who doesn't? We take a poll among the group to which we belong, and however they vote determines what's right?
I can agree that born people should get some degree of preference over the unborn, but not for the kind of reason you give here. You'll have to do better than this. You have to show objective, impartial criteria for judging what is right. You cannot write off a category of humans who are not present to cast their vote. Again, by that logic, we could plunder the earth today and lay it waste for future generations.
"You cannot deny it. By your logic, random eliminations of humans are good. Also natural disasters, and plane crashes and other accidents. Preventing such population control events is harmful."
But you're not just saying people should be allowed to abort. I agree with that. You're also saying that their decision to abort is always right, never wrong. I'm saying that a decision to abort, even though it should be legal, can be the wrong choice in some cases. While you insist that it can never be the wrong choice.
Why is it always the right choice? Why can't it sometimes be the wrong choice? If all fetuses are that fit for elimination and are that undesirable, then I suggest all born persons too are undesirable. Both the born and unborn pollute and consume resources. There is nothing undesirable about all the unborn which cannot also be said of the already-born. Everything you fear from the unborn is already being done by the born.
They are valued the same as future humans will be valued. When you eliminate a fetus today, you are eliminating its future value. The value which it would constitute in the future is being snuffed out.
That snuffing out of future value is no less real than the snuffing out of a born person today. Less value is less value, whether that value would be realized in the year 2000 or in 2050 or 2100. Delaying this loss to a future time does not make it less real.
(In the same way that a born person is valued.) No, not at the time of the abortion, but its future value being snuffed out would have been just as important in the future as the present value of a born person today.
______________
You mean average people, or random, including both some good-quality and bad-quality. Again, this means random annihilations are a benefit. And that there are not enough of these random annihilations at present. It would be good for a million or so to be annihilated from time to time. Why would it not be good, given your premise?
Again you are contradicting yourself. If this "problem" can be partly solved by killing some unborn, why not also by killing some already-born? Your goal is to reduce the number of people. Right?
But there could be a reason in some cases. The fetus could be healthy and have good traits which will make it just as valuable, or more valuable, than some of those already born. If there is reason to "continue" these less valuable born humans, then why couldn't there also be an objective reason to "continue" that healthy fetus?
If it would achieve the same desired result as aborting a million fetuses, why wouldn't it be just as desired? How can one action be good and another bad, and yet both achieve the same result?
Cutting down some adult trees would make at least as much sense as eliminating some of their offspring, or restricting the spawning of new trees. If curbing the reproduction of new trees is seen as a partial solution, why not also some random elimination of present adult trees? If anything, the latter would do more to solve the problem.
______________
There you go again taking polls, finding out what's popular and then defining "right" to be whatever 51% say they want. And meanwhile, behind the scenes, you are crusading to get people to vote a certain way. How do you decide which cause to crusade for in the first place?
Cut out the polling. You know this is an invalid form of argument. If this is all you have to fall back on, you must admit you have a weak argument.
Sometimes the opinions/perceptions are wrong, because they are biased or illogical. Yes, ultimately "good" and "evil" must be perceived or must have a perceptual effect on people. But a mere opinion poll about who should live and who should be eliminated is not the proper point at which "good" and "evil" can be defined.
" . . . despite public opinion polls, why wouldn't it be good for random annihilations to take place in order to relieve the population pressure? You're not going to weasel out of this dilemma."
That's the only goal you've identified so far. What other purpose is served by eliminating fetuses (future humans)? The woman's choice? Why this choice and not others? Like the choice of a mass killer to eliminate some people? Isn't a mass killing also an example of combining population control plus the right to choose?
We need a principle here. The only one which makes sense, which is logical and consistent is: We need more high-quality humans and fewer low-quality humans. We need selective population control, including selective abortion.
The woman's right to choose is valid if it is based on this principle. Hopefully she will make the right choice. But you cannot make a religion out of choice per se. You cannot say that her choice is always the right one, no matter what.
______________
"Nevermind what is 'seen as good' (or misperceived). What really is good is the issue. Yes, by my premise, some should be eliminated. But selectively. The less productive, more costly ones. While the higher-quality ones and more productive should be preserved. But by your premise, it should be random eliminations, without selection."
But it favors random eliminations to condone all decisions to abort without distinction, to applaud all such decisions as being automatically right. This is a form of random elimination because you totally disregard whether some fetuses have better prospects than others.
The woman's choice should be guided by considerations of whether the fetus will likely turn out to be healthy and have good traits. If such considerations are totally disregarded, then the choice could be a mistake.
But what if all the prospects for that offspring are good? What if it is healthy and has good traits and it would likely have a good home and good opportunities? Why should these parents feel guilty about adding another human to the population? This addition would likely be a good one. The decision to abort would likely be a mistake in this case.
If you're saying a mere whimsical impulse to "not add to the population" is a good reason to abort, always, then effectively you are saying random eliminations are good. Just because you're uncomfortable with the term "random elimination" and don't endorse it explicitly doesn't change the fact that you are condoning random eliminations.
______________
I think we should avoid epistemology and existential and solipsistic arguments. If you feel more comfortable with the phrase "what is really desired" or "what is really valued" then put that in place of my phrase. My point is just as correct with the rewording. And my point is that "what is really valued" cannot be determined by superficial opinion polls.
But I have shown there is a weakness in this thinking, because there is a bias on the part of the born which causes them to write off the unborn for reasons which would also justify eliminating some of the already born who are less productive or more costly. This kind of superficial polling does not lead us to a correct understanding of when abortions are truly valuable and when they are not.
You've got to get beyond these superficial opinion polls.
______________
"Let's call it 'pruning'. Selective pruning vs. random pruning. Obviously neither of these is 'seen' to be right in our society. But which one really is right -- selective pruning or random pruning?
"I would point out that with selective pruning, the total sustainable human population on the planet would be immensely greater, because the higher-quality humans would do the work necessary to improve the conditions for sustainability."
Again, are you saying a sustainable world population of only a few hundred would be just as good as a population of several million? So then, a mass annihilation of humans would not be a bad thing? As long as those left have a certain level of happiness per person?
You are simply wrong here. A higher human population is good, objectively, as long as the total sum happiness is made greater. Only when the sum total happiness begins to diminish with a higher population does the increased population become bad.
(I would add parenthetically that the happiness of non-human animals has to be factored into this equation.)
If the above principle of happiness and population is rejected, then I suggest there is no basis left for saying that human existence is good at all, and the total annihilation of the human species would not be a bad thing. I.e., if fewer humans is not bad, then neither is zero humans bad.
Or any bad in a smaller human population? or in a zero human population? Isn't this really an argument against any notion whatever of good/bad/right/wrong? By your logic, nothing is ever good/bad/right/wrong.
But in this case, why do you want to take opinion polls, as though these are any guide to choices? If there is no good/bad/right/wrong, then there is no basis for ever choosing anything. And there is nothing to have an opinion about and thus nothing to be polled. And substituting terminology like "values" or "desires" in place of "good"/"bad"/"right"/"wrong" does nothing to solve this.
______________
"As a practical matter I am saying much the same. But the basic principle should be to improve the quality of humans, to favor the birth of higher-quality healthy humans while discouraging that of lower-quality and unhealthy humans. Thus, not every abortion is necessarily a good thing. Some (maybe only a small number) are a net harm."
No, but some will forego it because they themselves deem it lower-quality. They should not be encouraged to think that their choice per se is sacred. A superficial impulse to "want a kid" might not be a good enough reason to spawn one.
People who "do not want a kid" probably should not be pressured to have one. Nothing I'm saying here suggests such pressuring, except perhaps in an extremely rare instance.
The more likely situation would be people who are inclined to have a kid or two, but then think, "No, we shouldn't add another human to the already dense population." And then, even though the fetus has good traits and good prospects, they decide to abort it. This is the situation where the "basic principle" above would come into play and perhaps change someone's mind about having an abortion.
All opinions are "significant." But I have agreed that the parents, or the woman, should make the choice. Hopefully they will make the right choice and not the wrong one. There is such a thing as a "wrong" choice.
______________
"Numbers like these can be twisted around and interpreted to mean anything you want. However you interpret it, if the U.S. is doing something wrong, then it should stop it! But if what it is doing is not wrong, or is right, then all other countries should do the same (or try to). So, this has nothing to do with population control."
In a sense perhaps. But it is not the consumption per se of resources which constitutes our high standard of living. The goal for us is to sustain our standard of living at a high level, or even raise it higher, while at the same time reducing our dependence on natural resources. This can be achieved, to some degree, through further advancement in technology.
And this higher standard of living can be made available to a larger number of people. Just as most Americans today live better than kings and queens did a few hundred years ago, so also most humans in "poor" countries 200 or 300 years from now could live better than Americans do today. Not the same consumption of resources, but the same or higher standard of living, made possible through better technology.
The key to this better future is to improve human quality of existence. Some abortion (selectively) is part of this picture. But a larger total human population is also part of the picture.
Through better technology, including recycling, goods and services can be made available to larger numbers of humans. It is "right" for people to have more goods and services, as long as it can be done with limited pollution and depletion of resources. It has to be sustainable consumption. Then it is "good" and "right", and any opinion which says otherwise is "wrong".
Some of America's consumption is excessive and unsustainable in the long run and will have to eventually decrease. But not all, and with improved technology eventually the total standard of living can be increased and we can continue to "gorge" ourselves and be wealthy (if we earn it).
If you mean the same amount of resources, then yes, not all can consume the same. But many non-Americans, even in poor countries, do consume as much as Americans, because they are wealthy and can afford it. Even more than the average American. And there's nothing wrong with this. But some of this consumption will have to decrease, and the same high living standard will have to become dependent more on better technology than on depletion of resources.
The rule should be that those who consume more should also produce more to make up for that extra consumption. As long as they produce proportionally more, there is nothing "wrong" with their extra consumption. And a higher human population can be a net gain if the additional humans are higher-producing humans.
There is a great desire for the kind of higher standard of living that most Americans enjoy. And it can be made possible, even with higher population, provided that there are more higher-quality healthy humans and fewer of the low-quality humans.
"I personally believe that all other countries could do the same as the U.S., for the most part, and the whole world would be more productive and more prosperous as a result. But if not, if only one country could possibly consume as much as the U.S. does, then the U.S. is guilty of something somewhere and should stop it."
They cannot consume the same resources, not all 6 billion. But eventually they will be able to enjoy the same benefits using fewer resources, and we Yanks will be forced to do the same. And that will be "good" and "right."
Not if the attempts focus on better technology rather than on more depletion of resources. Then the higher standard of living will be made posssible for them (and also for more Americans, as not all Americans share in the present high standard of living).
Huh? What's wrong is that we consume too much resources. It's not "wrong" to consume "a lot" provided that it's not based on depletion of resources. This problem is slowly being corrected. Through better technology eventually the whole world will be able to consume "a lot" and that will be "right" and "good." More humans, more and better technology, and more consumption for all!
______________
So does too few people. The key is to have better-quality people. With better-quality people a higher quality of life is possible and a larger population is sustainable and desirable.
Not if the increased population has higher-quality people in it. These higher-quality people will make the conditions better.
It depends on how many higher-quality humans are added and how many lower-quality ones are eliminated. With enough improvement in human quality virtually any conditions can be improved. As an example, the recent decrease in crime rate is partly due to selective abortions. Selectivity for higher-quality humans has already produced some good results. (It is not lower population which has contributed to the lower crime rate, but fewer births of low-quality humans has.)
If there is any truth to this it only points out the need to promote the principles I am setting forth here. Namely, we need to shift our attention away from the dichotomy of the born vs. the unborn and toward the dichotomy of high-quality humans vs. low-quality humans. Population control should be premised on the latter and should aim at increasing high quality while decreasing low quality. Not on indiscriminate prevention of new births.
______________
That sounds good. But there's one thing wrong with it: It leads to the conclusion that there should be no people at all. None at all would be best. Even one human alone is going to do some polluting and depleting of resources.
Since that probably isn't what you mean, then you must believe that people do in fact make up for their pollution somehow, so that a certain number is desirable even though they pollute. As long as you believe that, then you also believe it is good for people to contribute back, and the more they pay back the more justified it is for them to exist. And a larger population is always justified as their payback is larger.
So ever-improved quality of humans will always justify ever-increasing population size.
The alternative: ideally there should be no humans at all.
______________
"It does increase the quality of life if the increased people are high-quality people. To not think so your premise would have to be that good-quality people can do little or nothing to increase the quality of life."
But can people make up for their harmful effects (pollution) by doing good also? If so, why couldn't that one additional human be a net positive rather than a negative? And if not, well then, the best possible world would be one with no humans at all. Or at the very least, random annihilations would always be good.
______________
But more would be better.
I have agreed with this from the beginning way back there. I'm only saying that the parent's decision could sometimes be the wrong choice. Their decision is not automatically right just because it's their choice.
Again, I don't favor "compelling" them. I gave you an example where these ideas I'm presenting might cause someone to change their mind about an abortion. It would be the case where all the prospects would be good for the future child, but the parents feel guilty about adding one more human to the population. And so they abort it, even though it was healthy and had good traits and a good prospect to turn out as a high- quality human.
I think rather it is you and population-controllers who might be "compelling" some otherwise good parents to abort their fetus, thus eliminating an otherwise healthy high-quality human who would have contributed a net benefit to the world.
______________
"If it is a healthy fetus with good prospects, good genetic traits, then it is good overall for the pregnancy to be continued."
"Because the fetus will likely develop into a high-quality human who will end up making a total net positive contribution to the world. (Nonetheless, this value could be offset by the pain and inconvenience to the woman, and so it should be her choice whether to make that sacrifice.)"
Didn't I just say above that the woman should factor in the pain as a consideration?
No, my opinion is in keeping with the choice of abortion to be made legally by the parent(s). My only qualifier is that the choice either way could sometimes be the wrong choice. We should not assume that every choice to abort (or not to abort) by the parent(s) was the right choice.
______________
"Yes, in a sense. But that doesn't change the fact that an increase in good-quality people would still make the world better overall."
Again, your logic then is that the best world would have no humans at all. Explain at what point, at what population level "more" people would not be negative. One million, 1000, 50, half a dozen?
I admit this principle of higher-quality humans vs. lower-quality will not likely be adopted expressly by many people. But it will be partly adopted, and in fact is already partly in effect. People already understand this principle and practice it to a point. But we need to go farther in this direction of thinking. It will result in the world becoming better for everyone and increasing the total sustainable human population, which is a good thing if there is any such thing as "good".
______________
"Yes, but if those unaborted fetuses are healthy ones with good traits, the resulting population increase would be an increase of good-quality humans, who would make the world better despite the higher population."
Maybe. I can only say what SHOULD come about. I can't predict the future. I'll leave that to prophets like you.
When you're right, you don't worry about who "feels" what way. You are overobsessed with opinion polls. Don't you have any visions of a "better" world or a "better" life without first having to take a poll? How would you respond to a poll yourself? Would you first ask the pollster how everyone else voted and just automatically agree with the majority of those polled earlier?
______________
"But are they (the high-quality humans) a NET harm? You can't look only at the negative part (population pressure); you have to also look at the beneficial part. If even the best humans are a net negative harm, as you seem to imply, then again, mass annihilations, done randomly, would be a benefit."
Nothing should outweigh or overrule the parents' choice. But that choice itself should be guided by consideration of the fetus's potential to become a high-quality human. And there is objective reason to increase the population of high-quality humans. It is possible that the parents' choice either way could be wrong if it is not guided by these considerations.
______________
"Probably not. Their choice should not be overruled. But that isn't the same as saying that their choice is always the right one. In some cases their decision to abort could be the wrong choice. The world could have experienced a net benefit from that offspring, if it had a good potential to contribute."
Everything you're saying about the right of choice (the "value of the parents choice") is all opinion. You don't refute an argument by simply dismissing it as "opinion".