response from porkloin@aol.com,cont'd:
"What is really valued" by whom? "Really desired" by whom? Nothing is objectively valued or desired. They are mental concepts, not existing independent of the mind. Changing the wording does not change the fact that good/bad depends on one's viewpoint.
"Currently, most of us on earth think the 'right to life' of born persons is more important than population control, and more important than eliminating the 'less productive, more costly' etc."
Sure there's a bias - people value the born more than the unborn. It's just the way it is.
Yet again, there is no "truly valuable" beyond opinion. If it's not the desire of the majority you are seeking, then which is it?
______________"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."
Not many people care about making for an immensely greater sustainable population when they are choosing to have an abortion. For the manyeth time, there is no "really right" outside of opinion.
"A higher sustainable population is not 'good' in any objective way."
"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.)"
Nothing is "objectively good." A population of a few hundred is better than one of several million, from some viewpoints, worse from others. Yet that is your example. In saying that there is no external good in increasing the population, I refer to our present population level. Not desiring more is not necessarily the same as desiring less.
Existence is neither simply good nor bad. It simply is. The good/bad/right/wrong comes from opinion. "Fewer humans" is often seen to be bad.
"No objective good/bad/right/wrong, from the beginning. Even in the subjective realm, I fail to see any good in a larger population."
Notions are all we've got when it comes to good and bad. By my logic, nothing is good/bad outside of perception. I would not like to see zero human population. I would not like to see a smaller human population, if the method was mass killings. Should the population shrink with more birth control, fine.
I don't want to take opinion polls, but if you're not talking about majorities or certain segments of the population, then whose opinion of good/bad do you refer to? It's not that there is no good/bad/right/wrong, it is that they don't exist beyond opinion.
______________"I'm saying lessen the need, by not increasing the population beyond the births that are really wanted."
"That 'basic principle' does not reflect the reality of human nature. People that want a kid are not going to forego it because you deem their fetus 'lower-quality' or 'unhealthy.'"
If they don't want it, fine with me. And I agree -- that a "superficial impulse to want a kid" doesn't sound like a good reason (in my opinion).
"Likewise, people that do not want a kid are not going to have one because of your concerns about 'improving the quality of humans.'"
"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."
If people have such little desire to have a kid that the prospect of adding to the population deters them, I am all for them terminating the pregnancy.
"The 'net harm' you mention is in your opinion, and with respect to abortion, the significant opinion is held by the parents, almost always."
The significant opinion is the idea behind the action. With respect to abortion, as it is permitted here currently, the mother or the mother and father hold the significant opinion. It matters less what the Eagles Club membership thinks, what Joe Blow's Indonesian cousin thinks, etc. The mother/father are the ones who decide. You mention "right choice" and "wrong choice" but still are not specifying from whom that opinion is coming.
______________"The U.S. consumes 40% of the world's resources, for 6% of the population. If the U.S. has 280 million people, the world could only sustain 700 million, at that rate of consumption."
"No twist -- just the observation that only a relatively few people can consume as we do."
"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."
While reducing consumption of resources is a worthy goal in the opinion of most, standard of living is closely linked to that consumption, or the availability. Naturally, if one doesn't want a particular thing, they don't consider themselves deprived if they're not using it. Whatever the production of resources and technological wonders is, the more people there are, the less each may have, on average.
I will agree on the selective abortion, but view the selection process as wanted/not wanted. Your wanting of a healthy fetus that is unwanted by its parents will not sway many such couples to change their mind, I think. I cannot imagine that a larger human population will be a good thing overall. No way to know for now. I do think we will get the larger population, come what may.
"If we are talking about 'quality of life,' goods and services have a huge impact. Here too, there is no 'right' or 'wrong,' outside of opinion."
Though many people would agree with you, opinion it remains.
Agreed that future standard of living may be less intensely consumptive of resources. I hope so, but imagine that less per-capita consumption will be more than made up for by higher population. Right now, world consumption is far, far above what can be sustained, even at present population levels. Things will change, one way or another.
"If we desire that everybody on earth consumes the same amount, then the U.S. is doing 'wrong.'"
"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."
The rule is that those who consume more have to get it, whether by purchase, theft, etc. Production? Not necessarily, not if you can get it from somebody else.
"Neither is there great desire for every country on earth to be the same as the U.S."
"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."
The average family on earth has the equivalent of a shack with one 40 watt lightbulb in it. 'Higher-quality' humans are not going to increase wealth to the point where everybody can consume as Americans do, not with current population growth. Moreover, that is assuming that people would follow what you advocate, and that goes against human nature. People will want a kid, even if it doesn't meet your standards, and people won't choose to have a kid just because it does.
"There are not the resources for 6 billion+ people to consume as we Yanks do."
A gallon of crude oil does not get replaced, and only yields so much energy. It is non-renewable and is being depleted. "Same benefits using fewer resources" is possible, to some extent, but doesn't make up for the rate of population growth. Even with no growth at all, "the same benefits" for everybody on earth is an order of magnitude away. If the population was static, and benefits finally rose to that point, then I would entertain thoughts of more people with the same benefits. The reality is that population is growing fast, while the benefits/resources equation is growing slowly, i.e. we are moving away from your scenario, not toward it.
"Many people around the world desire our standard of living, but it's not possible, and attempts in that direction only increase humanity's detrimental effect on the earth."
More people wanting more goods means more depletion, period, even with the slight (compared to population growth) gains in efficiency that are ongoing. Technology is great, but an acre of rainforest is an acre of rainforest. At current rates of destruction, we can point to a time when it will be all gone. This is not hypothetical, nor dependent upon humans going against their nature, as supposed gains from the "higher-quality humans" reasoning are.
"We are guilty of consuming a lot, but it's only 'wrong' from the viewpoint that there is a 'too much' to be considered."
That problem is being corrected at a lesser rate than that of population growth, i.e., we're farther and farther behind all the time, the way things are now. Better technology has made us more efficient gatherers, not reduced consumption.
______________"Too many people on earth means lower quality of life."
When we get to the point of having too few people, let me know. Meanwhile, how many people will take what you advocate to heart and have "high-quality" kids where before they would not? So few that the overall "quality" will not change significantly, while all the time the population indeed is changing significantly.
"Increasing the population, from current levels, means worse conditions, all other things being equal."
"The concept of selecting 'higher-quality' people is not enough to overcome that . . ."
If it even would make a difference, there will still be insufficient change in this "quality" quotient to make up for the problems that already exist, let alone the ongoing population increase.
". . . and in addition -- won't be instituted to any meaningful degree, unless population pressure becomes so severe that a real sea-change in opinion occurs."
It's not realistic to expect people to do that. Many of those who will produce what you call "lower-quality" will still produce them, and some of those who would make "higher-quality" will choose not to have kids. Population pressure demonstrably influences policies and practices to be in effect, a la China, that reduces population, or at least the rate of population increase, rather than addressing any "quality" issue.
______________"This hypothetical equation of contributing as much as is consumed doesn't reflect what really goes on. We don't contribute crude oil back into the ground or contribute plant life back into existence, on a cumulative basis. We don't contribute pollution back out of existence -- we only continually add to it. All this is in line with 'More people are not objectively better than less.'"
"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."
Few if any people desire the elimination of all humans. That is not to say that population pressure is not a concern. Many, many people, who have no desire to kill off any born people, also have no desire to have kids of their own. They don't care about the "quality" of their potential offspring. And though they may care about humanity's effect on the earth, the main thing is that they just plain don't want kids.
______________"Increasing the numbers of people does nothing to increase the quality of life."
While "good-quality" people may make a difference, it is not enough to offset the population's effect on the earth, and on each other. To presuppose that enough of what you call "high-quality" people will be born, in a change of affairs, to significantly alter the conditions for the general population, is to deny human nature, and is not reflective of reality.
"My premise is not that good-quality people can do little or nothing good. My premise is that despite whatever good stuff they do, their numbers contribute to humanity's harmful effects on earth, and sometimes on humanity."
Sure, a given human could be a net positive, or a net negative. Overall, the existing population is seen as enough of a positive that there is no prevalent desire to get rid of "all humans" or even institute annihilations. Though we know we pollute, etc., we (obviously) don't see ourselves as a net negative. This in no way means that a given person or couple would want to have a kid, "quality" or not.
______________"There are plenty of 'good-quality' people now . . ."
I cannot imagine that things will change sufficiently to make it untrue that more people will primarily deplete and harm the earth even faster than is the case at present.
" . . . and no reason to overrule the parent's desire not to have a child."
So you're just saying you disagree with their opinion. Well, it's no surprise that different opinions exist. Also no surprise that theirs would be different than yours. You are focusing on this "improving quality" notion - something that none or almost none of them (or anybody else) care about.
"This 'high-quality' selection you mention is not going to be implemented, the way things are now. If anything, compelling people to continue a pregnancy would predispose that born baby to have less than ideal conditions from the get-go."
"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."
It seems ludicrous to me to suppose that a couple, so unsure about having a kid that you propose they consider the above, would go ahead and have one on that basis.
______________"Why do you say it is good overall?"
"'Total net positive' is a big maybe. What is not a maybe is that pain on the woman's part, and opposing her desire, is negative, for her, and in the perception of many."
If you are acknowledging the woman's choice and would not compel events differently, you are left with merely disagreeing with the choice. You value the potential "quality" of the offspring. Somebody else thinks that only those of the very, very highest genetic character should be allowed to breed, and does not value this particular fetus. Another values the "sanctity" of the human life. The mother doesn't care about any of those - she doesn't want the offspring, period. All four of you have different values, and different perceptions of what are "right."
As a society, we value the woman's perception. So when you say her choice, her perception, may be wrong, I disagree, unless you specify whose opinion we accept at the outset.
"Enough so that humanity has acknowledged that the value of the choice of abortion not only 'offsets' opinions such as yours, but that it outweighs them."
Again, wrong not in an unspecified sense, but only in the specific case (here) of "high-quality" potential offspring.
______________"There is no lack of people now."
"That is no fact -- that is your opinion. More people, by itself, has negative consequences -- the same old population pressure that we already feel the effects of."
It's not "my logic" that would argue for no humans at all, but rather the viewpoint that "any" human effect is bad. My personal opinion is that a figure somewhere up to hundreds of millions would cause enough less damage that I'd be happy about it. We all would draw the line somewhere, and I'd have to [experience] such a different world before being sure about the figures.
You are also talking about reduced figures from those currently in effect. Magically making it so that the world has one-tenth the people, and did not have more, is one thing. Killing off 90% is another. Different valuations at work.
"I further think that implementation of your 'higher-quality' standards would be seen as making the world 'worse overall' enough that it won't come about."
Your opinion of a higher sustainable human population being good for its own sake is not shared by many people (especially those choosing abortion).
______________"Decreasing abortions would only add to the rate of population increase."
"Well, that's an 'if' that's not going to come about, not the way things are now."
If there is any prophesizing going on here, it is your dubious notion that more people that you would select as worthy would change the world as you say. Reality is that we are faced with overcrowding, pollution, resource depletion, etc.
"That 'better' remains subjective -- who knows how many would feel that way?"
More people, rather than less, would agree with the woman, and disagree with your position and you saying her choice could be wrong. You made no specifications in your premise about special interests or viewpoints other than the main. If not by the choice of the individual in question or by the majority, how do we define "right"?
______________"There are plenty of people with the 'good' stuff now. But they, and those with the 'bad' stuff, all are part of the population pressure that we already have."
A benefit to the environment, but that is not all that people value. Considerations of "net value" are nothing beside the desire or not of the mother/parents. Even solely considering the quality/value question, it is pitting the certain and present reality of more people causing more harm against your hypothetical improvement from selected people.
"Overall, no, the 'high-quality' are not a net harm. But that does not mean that the potential for a fetus being a 'high-quality' person outweighs the value of the parents choice combined with there being no objective reason to increase the population."
Again, you did not define a specific viewpoint in your premise.
______________"If the pregnancy is wanted, fine. But if it is not wanted by the parents, there is no objective, external reason for it to be born, and no opinion more important than that of the parents."
That "could have" is important in your view, not necessarily in the parents' view. That "wrong" lies under the scope of hypothetically bettering things, even bettering them enough to compensate for increasing population, none of which was set forth in your premise.
"Well, some people say their choice should be overruled. That is all opinion, just as 'the right one' or 'the wrong one' is."
You are correct that value is all opinion. There is no external source - it is all subjective valuation. In this case, your initial premise is nothing more than opinion, and all the arguing, and rights and wrongs thereafter are rooted in opinion. In this matter, opinion is all we've got. My refutation is based on the fact that there is no one objective "right" or "wrong" about the issue. In lieu of you being specific about the frame of reference, the "right" of the mother's/parents' choice and the "right" of society's declaration come before your individual opinion.
If you had begun by saying, "From a standpoint of bringing more high-genetic-quality people into the world, the choice of abortion may be wrong," I would not have argued it.
______________
End of page 5.