selfishness and overpopulation

[newthoughts]

On populations:

In the United States there is a federal money giving program for everything ranging from being poor to a needy non-Caucasian student. However, after upwardly mobile citizens can finance education, pass, (national dropout rate is 50%), and actually find a job amidst obscene financial systemic corruption, things may not go so well. I consider these people beyond help by the nation's governmental stewards and, many may count themselves among the generation of the "baby boomers". This group is especially hard hit by a combination of an impossible social security program, hyper inflation, financial corruption, skyrocketing insurance and health-care prices, computer savvy youngsters with better educations and the outsourcing of every kind of job that someone else will do for a dollar an hour and no bathroom breaks. After the hyper inflated mortgage, energy, food and medical bills start stacking up some people who have not saved for retirement find themselves a lot older, tireder and most likely ill. In their lifetimes, they have seen multiple politically polarizing wars, had their parents fight and possibly die as an indirect result of the great WWII and all the while have been proud to call themselves Americans.

All of this is a back drop to my question about selfishness. Is it not to one's betterment and ultimately best for society when individuals are selfish? Meaning, if people just acted selfishly they would have found a way to have their needs met and, thus innovation and competition would provide many avenues for a healthy, happy and long life? If so this would certainly answer the utilitarian need for happiness in general and for the individual thinker.

The truth is that people will continue to reproduce no matter what the normative culture is. This means more poverty, disease, less freedom more suffering in general etc. Billions will continue to be out competed on social, mental and physical standings. My final question is this: Wouldn't it not only for the sake of happiness, but for the sake of ethics be right to enslave and euthanize?

[ex_banana-eater]

The truth is that people will continue to reproduce no matter what the normative culture is. This means more poverty, disease, less freedom more suffering in general etc. Billions will continue to be out competed on social, mental and physical standings.

I would check this premise. Why would more human beings mean more poverty, disease, and less freedom?

Maybe more human beings raised to be unthinking leeches, who do not create or produce anything, and support dictatorships. More people who are generally productive means more wealth, less poverty and disease. Competition has nothing to do with it lowering standards of living--capitalism is a race to the top.

Edited November 21, 2009 by ex_banana-eater

[newthoughts]

I would check this premise. Why would more human beings mean more poverty, disease, and less freedom?

Maybe more human beings raised to be unthinking leeches, who do not create or produce anything, and support dictatorships. More people who are generally productive means more wealth, less poverty and disease. Competition has nothing to do with it lowering standards of living--capitalism is a race to the top.

What makes things valuable in capitalism is the effort required to obtain them. All animal populations and through the course of evolution have been thinned through competition. Most notably is the challenges posed by mother nature herself. Hence humans have risen up through dictatorships, feudalism, oligarchies and maybe through technocracies. There is too much documentation in biology and current events to have to prove the evil of overpopulation.

I do appreciate that you value freedom over social engineering. Is your moral of capitalism that the race is important? If you are superior in your capitalist environment and you find that others are leaches then why not enslave and/or euthanize them? One could argue that this is a natural consequence of capitalism anyways.

[CWEarl]

If you are superior in your capitalist environment and you find that others are leaches then why not enslave and/or euthanize them? One could argue that this is a natural consequence of capitalism anyways.

Well then, let's have it. Show us this argument.

[newthoughts]

Well then, let's have it. Show us this argument.

Without drawing from:

the history of the united states and slavery

the outsourcing of American jobs to impoverished third world countries

"In particular, the continuous technological development is the one aspect that really characterizes the age of capitalism (i.e. industrialism); but its emergence is only possible on the basis of the individual freedom to act in order to satisfy personal interests and the individual freedom to trade in order to satisfy personal needs."

the presence of oligarchies, fraud and debt slavery

I will make the simple observation that just because people have money in a capitalist environment does mean they are free. Just like you may legally have the freedom of speech but you cannot just say anything. Maybe it's not a zero sum game but many do not live in a capitalist utopia even in the United States. They are however accountable for all the consequences imposed on them by external artificial pressures and find themselves completely obligated to their job. How is this freedom? There is the meager means to survive or nothing at all. Poverty and debt is enslavement. There is nothing else but extreme risk per individual to change things for oneself.

[Jake_Ellison]

There is too much documentation in biology and current events to have to prove the evil of overpopulation.

There is nothing in biology or current events to prove the evil of overpopulation. There is plenty in your posts to prove that you don't know what it would mean to prove something, though.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Eiuol]

I do appreciate that you value freedom over social engineering. Is your moral of capitalism that the race is important? If you are superior in your capitalist environment and you find that others are leaches then why not enslave and/or euthanize them? One could argue that this is a natural consequence of capitalism anyways.

Because that would be immoral. That isn't a consequence of capitalism by any means, since that would hardly be a free market because there is force involved. That is a consequence of not recognizing rights of individuals. Capitalism by any proper definition *is* a system that recognizes individual rights.

I don't understand your final question : "Wouldn't it not only for the sake of happiness, but for the sake of ethics be right to enslave and euthanize?" Nothing you mentioned demonstrates even a suggestion or possibility of that being true. If you're simply asking why force is immoral, it's because it necessarily violates and individuals rights. On top of that, enslavement isn't even productive, even if for some reason you believe rights are an invalid concept.

"I will make the simple observation that just because people have money in a capitalist environment does mean they are free."

Just because people don't have money doesn't mean they are not free.

I really don't know what you're getting at. "Overpopulation" isn't exactly a good thing, but birth rate is typically higher in less industrialized places (as in , less capitalistic). Interestingly, a lot of the things you mentioned in the first paragraph of the OP are procapitalist points (or rather, issues any defender of capitalism would mention). Those are consequences where there isn't a free market. You should be a little more explicit in your questions. It's hard to tell if you are merely asking questions or arguing a specific point of view).

Edited November 21, 2009 by Eiuol

[newthoughts]

Because that would be immoral. That isn't a consequence of capitalism by any means, since that would hardly be a free market because there is force involved. That is a consequence of not recognizing rights of individuals. Capitalism by any proper definition *is* a system that recognizes individual rights.

I don't understand your final question : "Wouldn't it not only for the sake of happiness, but for the sake of ethics be right to enslave and euthanize?" Nothing you mentioned demonstrates even a suggestion or possibility of that being true. If you're simply asking why force is immoral, it's because it necessarily violates and individuals rights. On top of that, enslavement isn't even productive, even if for some reason you believe rights are an invalid concept.

"I will make the simple observation that just because people have money in a capitalist environment does mean they are free."

Just because people don't have money doesn't mean they are not free.

I really don't know what you're getting at. "Overpopulation" isn't exactly a good thing, but birth rate is typically higher in less industrialized places (as in , less capitalistic). Interestingly, a lot of the things you mentioned in the first paragraph of the OP are procapitalist points (or rather, issues any defender of capitalism would mention). Those are consequences where there isn't a free market. You should be a little more explicit in your questions. It's hard to tell if you are merely asking questions or arguing a specific point of view).

Well the thing is I saw an interview of Ayn Rand with Phil Donahue where she expounds on helping the disabled as basically evil. I don't want to turn that into some sound bite but she was raising the point of selfishness and charity. Yes there are a lot of things very wrong with how capitalism is implemented in the United States. And, China for instance has already begun restricting births as a logical conclusion to overpopulation. My final question is a matter of deriving a moral. If people are incapable of making the correct decisions that lead them to a happy healthy life (by external or internal pressures) then we become their stewards. We can not just ignore them out of existence. I wish to be the steward of no one, no one's master because I do not believe in slavery. If disabled people can no longer care for themselves and the world's diverse ever increasing populations and economies favor upwardly mobile individuals, (20-50 year olds), by allowing them to obtain brief and possibly secure lives, then what happens to everyone else? What happens to the people who've had their savings and investments obliterated or jobs outsourced? To some this may be viewed as forgone conclusion. It can be argued euthanasia is immoral. For someone's suffering or the suffering of the group it can be argued that is moral. I was thinking so could slavery but the first option seems more moral. It's not a simple question and there probably is no one best answer but people probably don't think about things on a system level anyways.

[Jake_Ellison]

Well the thing is I saw an interview of Ayn Rand with Phil Donahue where she expounds on helping the disabled as basically evil.

No, you didn't see that. You should pay more attention when watching youtube videos. She said the use government force to rob those who are capable in the name of helping those who aren't, is evil.

[softwareNerd]

Well the thing is I saw an interview of Ayn Rand with Phil Donahue where she expounds on helping the disabled as basically evil.

You seem have misinterpreted what she said. She was talking about the government spending millions on mentally retarded at the cost of spending money on kids who are bright. She says that she thinks that private charity is the way that disabled people can be supported, while reminding us that to give to such charity at the cost to one's own kids would be wrong.

[newthoughts]

You seem have misinterpreted what she said. She was talking about the government spending millions on mentally retarded at the cost of spending money on kids who are bright. She says that she thinks that private charity is the way that disabled people can be supported, while reminding us that to give to such charity at the cost to one's own kids would be wrong.

That is a much more accurate quote. She does mention a lack of "special schools" for gifted children. She of course does mention altruism in no definite terms in a quick interview (I'm not trying to characterize her philosophy by that interview). "Your first priority is the gifted". "..then appeal to private charity". Sometimes I tend to think of things in absolutes... "it's improper and unjust" to be rewarded outside of "...free competition". It is a very good point but if private charities were so effective then why are there so many homeless here in the United States. Just go to a major city and you will see them. My question however is more focused on those who cannot compete, most likely not even for an impoverished existence. And, for those who can only obtain at best an insecure and impoverished existence.

[softwareNerd]

My question however is more focused on those who cannot compete, most likely not even for an impoverished existence. And, for those who can only obtain at best an insecure and impoverished existence.

Anyone is free to help such people. Rand was against altruism -- i..e the idea that service to others is the fountainhead of virtue -- not against helping others as such.

[newthoughts]

Anyone is free to help such people. Rand was against altruism -- i..e the idea that service to others is the fountainhead of virtue -- not against helping others as such.

Agreed... She was also definitely against slavery. Always kind of thought her ideas were applicable on the individual level in many ways for forming beliefs. She does a good job a defining altruism in the context of selfishness as a virtue. Capitalism is not a virtue. It would be physically impossible to not subordinate my own selfish desires/needs to help someone else. Therefore it would make more sense for the healthy and upwardly mobile to collectively pool resources to carry those who no longer carry themselves. This is either not a reality or a failed reality for many in the United States.

[Zip]

All animal populations and through the course of evolution have been thinned through competition.

Human beings are not animals in the same sense that a pack of wolves are animals. Throughout human history the fact of the matter is that as there are more of us we find better ways of feeding ourselves and prospering. Today we have GM foods that make an acre of land 10 times more productive than the same acre of land less than 50 years ago.

Most notably is the challenges posed by mother nature herself.

Mother nature? Mother nature has been giving us humans the gears since forever... we're still here, and prospering.

Hence humans have risen up through dictatorships, feudalism, oligarchies and maybe through technocracies. There is too much documentation in biology and current events to have to prove the evil of overpopulation.

Sorry, not for me. Indeed I put it to you that almost all feudalism, and most oligarchies in history occurred long, long, long before there was anything close to "overpopulation".

I do appreciate that you value freedom over social engineering. Is your moral of capitalism that the race is important? If you are superior in your capitalist environment and you find that others are leaches then why not enslave and/or euthanize them? One could argue that this is a natural consequence of capitalism anyways.

Ha. Laughable and stupid. Keep digging.

[Eiuol]

Agreed... She was also definitely against slavery. Always kind of thought her ideas were applicable on the individual level in many ways for forming beliefs. She does a good job a defining altruism in the context of selfishness as a virtue. Capitalism is not a virtue. It would be physically impossible to not subordinate my own selfish desires/needs to help someone else. Therefore it would make more sense for the healthy and upwardly mobile to collectively pool resources to carry those who no longer carry themselves. This is either not a reality or a failed reality for many in the United States.

Sure you can help others and still be selfish... It's just a matter of not *subordinating* yourself to others. The idea is that you have no moral *obligation* to help another person. However, there are situations where helping another person is the selfish and rational thing to do. Also, your therefore simply doesn't follow.

[newthoughts]

Human beings are not animals in the same sense that a pack of wolves are animals. Throughout human history the fact of the matter is that as there are more of us we find better ways of feeding ourselves and prospering. Today we have GM foods that make an acre of land 10 times more productive than the same acre of land less than 50 years ago.

Mother nature? Mother nature has been giving us humans the gears since forever... we're still here, and prospering.

Sorry, not for me. Indeed I put it to you that almost all feudalism, and most oligarchies in history occurred long, long, long before there was anything close to "overpopulation".

Ha. Laughable and stupid. Keep digging.

Technology helping man:

This is probably a means and not an end. To some technology comes from the work of others and the group. To others it is merely used. To others it is from the well springs of the individual mind ie: Tesla

Mother nature:

Certainty the biggest threat to mankind is mother nature and mankind.

Oligarchy depends on your perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

and finally...

You're calling me stupid, you're right that is laughable.

[newthoughts]

Sure you can help others and still be selfish... It's just a matter of not *subordinating* yourself to others. The idea is that you have no moral *obligation* to help another person. However, there are situations where helping another person is the selfish and rational thing to do. Also, your therefore simply doesn't follow.

That is the dilemma I'm having. My idea is to be rational and that obligates me to at least stand by my beliefs. It is very difficult to believe something when it is merely logical but still feels very evil. There is no way one person could ever help the masses. For some reason I don't think that was the point of capitalism anyways.

fun read:

http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm

Edited November 22, 2009 by newthoughts

[Jennifer]

No disrespect intended Newthoughts but the initial post in this thread has such a large degree of logical fallacies and false assumptions that I don't know if I can spare the time to correct all of them to the point where you will realize all of the errors to the extent where we could start having a proper and forward-moving discussion. I suggest you think about some of the statements you made and think them over a bit more and repost your positions/commentary, unless my friends are willing enough to do the work for you which it seems like, partially, they are.

[Zip]

Technology helping man:

This is probably a means and not an end. To some technology comes from the work of others and the group. To others it is merely used. To others it is from the well springs of the individual mind ie: Tesla

What is the end? What exactly are you trying to say about technology? No not everyone creates it, but more and more people use it and it enriches the lives of all those that do.

Mother nature:

Certainty the biggest threat to mankind is mother nature and mankind.

Barring a 1/1,000,000,000,000 planet killer asteroid I think you are overstating the danger poised.

You're calling me stupid, you're right that is laughable.

I didn't call you stupid I called what you wrote stupid, specifically this...

If you are superior in your capitalist environment and you find that others are leaches then why not enslave and/or euthanize them? One could argue that this is a natural consequence of capitalism anyways.

it shows a complete and utter ignorance as to the nature of capitalism and rights in general and really sounds more like something a troll would post rather than someone interested in actually having a reasonable logical thought provoking conversation. But instead of writing out all of that and wasting my time I wrote that it was (and is) stupid.

[Zip]

There is no way one person could ever help the masses.

Bullshit. Ben Franklin's work on electricity... The invention of the wheel, pasteurization, polio vaccine, cement, GM foods, the microchip, the printing press, Iodised salt, plastics, nuclear power, velcro... I could go on forever.

[newthoughts]

What is the end? What exactly are you trying to say about technology? No not everyone creates it, but more and more people use it and it enriches the lives of all those that do.

Barring a 1/1,000,000,000,000 planet killer asteroid I think you are overstating the danger poised.

I didn't call you stupid I called what you wrote stupid, specifically this... it shows a complete and utter ignorance as to the nature of capitalism and rights in general and really sounds more like something a troll would post rather than someone interested in actually having a reasonable logical thought provoking conversation. But instead of writing out all of that and wasting my time I wrote that it was (and is) stupid.

Technology is a huge reason we can have large populations. Some say it even brings about a theocracy but just because it helps man does not make it moral or an end. A simple theocracy is probably not an end. Tesla for instance was a great individual thinker and inventor through early 20th century US industrialization. However he died penniless. Some say it was his fault and others point to the desire of bankers to confiscate his intellectual property.

Good point on the asteroid. It is probably what wiped out the dinosaurs and the great lizards before them giving way to the evolutionary process of humans. As scientific analysis becomes more sophisticated we may find other reasons to prove cataclysmic species devastation. Seems to happen every 60 million years or so. However given industrialized nations reliance on electric devices one giant solar storm or dust bowl could indirectly kill off a billion people in as little as a year.

Your last point instead of immature name calling... I'm asking my question in the context of capitalism which may ultimately require social engineering. I don't know if I think it's right or wrong since I value the individual and freedom above all but the problem posed by my question points to a need for the collective. Capitalism has a spotty, some may say even dark history and is not right just because it is capitalism. It also shares characteristics to other forms of civilization formed over a brief period of human civilization. Some could say it is getting worse in the United States while technology is improving ...interesting. If you want to inject a discussion on rights then please do.

Edited November 22, 2009 by newthoughts

[newthoughts]

No disrespect intended Newthoughts but the initial post in this thread has such a large degree of logical fallacies and false assumptions that I don't know if I can spare the time to correct all of them to the point where you will realize all of the errors to the extent where we could start having a proper and forward-moving discussion. I suggest you think about some of the statements you made and think them over a bit more and repost your positions/commentary, unless my friends are willing enough to do the work for you which it seems like, partially, they are.

The point of the initial post is not to formulate a bullet proof argument. I'm just creating the scene as it is and injecting some philosophy in order to answer a serious question. As far as the false assumptions go it would be possible to write a book on each of the points I brought up. There's no way anyone has the time for that sort of thing. Granted depending on your interests, experience, education and economic means you may see the world very differently from the person sitting next to you. I'm not trying to demand your respect. But I don't think I said anything deserving of disrespect and I didn't realize it if you were disrespectful. Are you asking for clarification on something specific?

"In principle, there are only two fundamental political viewpoints. That is, two contradictory ends of the 'political spectrum.' Those two principles are freedom and slavery." -- Mark Da Cunha

"Collective judgment of new ideas is so often wrong that it is arguable that progress depends on individuals being free to back their own judgment despite collective disapproval." -- W.A. Lewis

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816

"It is embarrassing to have to remind people of this in the United States of America. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson singled out three natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last phrase, appearing instead of 'property,' has prompted much discussion. I cannot say what Jefferson was thinking. But here's a plausible theory: Property is already implicit in liberty. If you are free, you can use your belongings as you see fit. But by specifying the pursuit of happiness Jefferson might have been pointing out that the blessing of liberty need not be justified through selfless service to others. One's life and happiness on earth are justification enough." -- Sheldon Richman

"The idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." -- Ayn Rand

Maybe I don't have a question that goes unanswered. Maybe there is a clear moral imperative to demand of individuals to be subordinate to the collective under special circumstances.

Edited November 22, 2009 by newthoughts

[fountainhead777]

I will add this: Capitalism, pure capitalism, the only kind that can exist and be called that, has never existed in history because of various forms of statism. Most of the problems you attribute to capitalism are really problems resulting from mixed economies and statism

[Zip]

Technology is a huge reason we can have large populations. Some say it even brings about a theocracy but just because it helps man does not make it moral or an end. A simple theocracy is probably not an end. Tesla for instance was a great individual thinker and inventor through early 20th century US industrialization. However he died penniless. Some say it was his fault and others point to the desire of bankers to confiscate his intellectual property.

You have yet to prove that there is anything wrong with our current population. I don't care that Tesla died broke, just a casual glance at the state of his personal life here gives one a fairly good indication of why he would die broke and forgotten.

Good point on the asteroid. It is probably what wiped out the dinosaurs and the great lizards before them giving way to the evolutionary process of humans. As scientific analysis becomes more sophisticated we may find other reasons to prove cataclysmic species devastation. Seems to happen every 60 million years or so. However given industrialized nations reliance on electric devices one giant solar storm or dust bowl could indirectly kill off a billion people in as little as a year.

So? To coin a phrase... shit happens.

I'm asking my question in the context of capitalism which may ultimately require social engineering.

The last thing a capitalist wants to do is limit his clientèle. Capitalism as a thing doesn't "want" "need" or "desire" anything. It is a system not an entity.

I don't know if I think it's right or wrong since I value the individual and freedom above all but the problem posed by my question points to a need for the collective.

Do you not see the contradiction here? You are talking about euthanasia and you say you don't know if it is right or wrong and in the very same sentence you claim to value individual freedom above all and still in the same sentence you claim there is some sort of a need for a collective... This must either be some sort of joke or some sort of record for the most conflicted world view yet.

Capitalism has a spotty, some may say even dark history and is not right just because it is capitalism.

Capitalism is the only economic model that supports individual rights and freedoms

It also shares characteristics to other forms of government formed over a brief period of human civilization.

Capitalism is an economic system not a government, but please do try to attribute to capitalism the aspects you claim it shares with government. I'd like to hear your points.

Some could say it is getting worse in the United States while technology is improving ...interesting. If you want to inject a discussion on rights then please do.

You would have to prove that the US is getting worse because of capitalism. Again, please do so if you can.

[newthoughts]

You have yet to prove that there is anything wrong with our current population. I don't care that Tesla died broke, just a casual glance at the state of his personal life here gives one a fairly good indication of why he would die broke and forgotten.

So? To coin a phrase... shit happens.

The last thing a capitalist wants to do is limit his clientèle. Capitalism as a thing doesn't "want" "need" or "desire" anything. It is a system not an entity.

Do you not see the contradiction here? You are talking about euthanasia and you say you don't know if it is right or wrong and in the very same sentence you claim to value individual freedom above all and still in the same sentence you claim there is some sort of a need for a collective... This must either be some sort of joke or some sort of record for the most conflicted world view yet.

Capitalism is the only economic model that supports individual rights and freedoms

Capitalism is an economic system not a government, but please do try to attribute to capitalism the aspects you claim it shares with government. I'd like to hear your points.

You would have to prove that the US is getting worse because of capitalism. Again, please do so if you can.

The thing wrong with the current population is lack of personal freedom, security, wealth and general rigidity in class structure (although the effects are less realized under a capitalist system). Overpopulation and competition for commodities will one day reach a final point as we add a billion or so people here and there over the next 100 years. This is another cause for inflation since we have narrow minded businessmen and corporate oligarchies. I misspoke when I said capitalism was a form of government, shit happens. Socialism may award a better quality of life on average when it is all said and done and that is not capitalism. Personally I agree with the characterization of utilitarianism as a "pig's philosophy", but there is something to be said for being happy. I bet you don't know why all the best inventions come out of the united states. It is because the competition can come from any direction. I didn't say the US is getting worse because of Capitalism. Only that the US may be getting worse and hence Capitalism may be getting worse in the US.

I guess I'm referring to voluntary euthanasia but would be open to discussing involuntary or coerced as well.

Edited November 22, 2009 by newthoughts