selfishness and overpopulation

[Zip]

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).

That has nothing to do with Capitalism per se.

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.

Are you assuming that we (the human race) are going to stagnate here on this rock for the next hundred years? Why do doomsayers always discount human progress?

This is another cause for inflation since we have narrow minded businessmen and corporate oligarchies.

You're sounding suspiciously like a conspiracy theorist here. The business culture will change just like the rest of the culture. If we can eliminate some of the government pork then business' will go back to relying on their own wits and activities to ensure their profits.

Socialism may award a better quality of life on average when it is all said and done and that is not capitalism.

Show me where and when socialism has produced anything but shared misery.

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.

The way you write is very hard to follow. My mistake.

[newthoughts]

That has nothing to do with Capitalism per se.

Are you assuming that we (the human race) are going to stagnate here on this rock for the next hundred years? Why do doomsayers always discount human progress?

You're sounding suspiciously like a conspiracy theorist here. The business culture will change just like the rest of the culture. If we can eliminate some of the government pork then business' will go back to relying on their own wits and activities to ensure their profits.

Show me where and when socialism has produced anything but shared misery.

The way you write is very hard to follow. My mistake.

Search page 2 for "Maybe I don't have a question that goes unanswered"

I think we're getting off the subject here.

[ex_banana-eater]

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

The good of a high population density of productive people is the specialization of labour, and the increased value that each person productively creates. All human production is a series of adding more usable things from unusable things to this earth, not a scramble to gobble up nature-made resources as in the case of animals.

Is your moral of capitalism that the race is important?

Capitalism is the moral system of government because it is the only system which guarantees individual rights. Individuals rights are moral-political ideals that grant freedom of action to the individual, as long as he does not violate the rights of others. I believe laissez-faire capitalism is the moral system of government because it leaves me free from the force of others (including the government) to pursue my self-interest, and ultimately, happiness.

If you are superior in your capitalist environment and you find that others are leaches then why not enslave and/or euthanize them?

If someone has slaves, they are a leach by the very act.

[newthoughts]

If someone has slaves, they are a leach by the very act.

Can you say for certain you do not have slaves?

Definition:

Slavery is any of a number of related conditions involving control of a person against his or her will, enforced by violence or other clear forms of coercion.

All slave masters have not been completely cruel. The slave must have the basic elements of life to exist. These are provided in the US by the inflated dollar. After the bills stack up at the end of the day there is nothing left for tens of millions in their isolated lives. This is not capitalism but a byproduct of that system. If the slave refuses to work there is no government plan that will help them enough to avoid homelessness. If the slave becomes sick there is no collective agreement to spare the slave the cost health-care to avoid homelessness. The slave may save/borrow money but in a decade that money will be half as valuable. The slave may invest but in a few years that investment will be half as valuable. The slave may reproduce but only to see their grandchildren pay for mistakes and excesses of an irresponsible government and corporate oligarchy. This is slavery and does not need my justification. This is not a division of labor but slavery.

Slavery has always been a part of human endeavor. The first domesticated animal was probably a human.

...violence or other clear forms of coercion:

Any failures by the slave will drive the point home even further. Any attempts by the slave to escape are considered extremely risky and the vast majority of the time will end in failure.

Edited November 22, 2009 by newthoughts

[newthoughts]

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.

Mathematically I think your reason is superior and this is a good point. However, capitalism is not a justification on it's own. It is just the context of which I asked my question. By and large, not everyone has the imaginary or real benefits of capitalism.

[Eiuol]

Mathematically I think your reason is superior and this is a good point. However, capitalism is not a justification on it's own. It is just the context of which I asked my question. By and large, not everyone has the imaginary or real benefits of capitalism.

Not everyone has the imaginary or real benefits of capitalism because it doesn't exist right now. Nor has it ever. I'm not exactly sure what your question is. You're worried about overpopulation. So what? Capitalism is more likely to cause a decrease in the birth rate than an increase anyway.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

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.

The human mind is individual, not collective, whatever you know you know because you put forth the effort, even if you learned it from someone else. For there to be a prosperous society, it is society that must be reigned in when it conflicts with the individual. The rational individual must be free to prosper, or no one will, because the individual is the fount of human progress -- that one mind that figured out something new and learned how to apply it. You are able to have the knowledge you do and the standard of living that you do because those individual were free to prosper. Look back at history and see what ages were most productive and you will find that when men were free they were most productive.So, no there are no special circumstance under which the individual must be subordinated to the collective, that is just evil Marxism raring it's ugly head. Leave the individual alone and you will prosper.

[newthoughts]

Look back at history and see what ages were most productive and you will find that when men were free they were most productive.So, no there are no special circumstance under which the individual must be subordinated to the collective, that is just evil Marxism raring it's ugly head. Leave the individual alone and you will prosper.

Well that is a good point, don't be a Marxist. Individual rights are subordinated all the time: imminent domain etc. There is a fine balance that no one can seem to dictate or define. I guess that's why we have democracies that are completely representing the will of the people. No one wants to see grandma get put in the euthanasia program so the collective steams on despite the suffering that occurs over her illness. It is ethical because of the underlying thought but the collective must also deem it so for the idea to really exist. You can never accept that people will tolerate each other and act on their own accord for their own self interest completely. Consider the use of censorship during war time for instance.

[whYNOT]

Quite so; whenever I read of this type of 'groupism', or social Darwinism, by people wanting to engineer entire societies of people into some form of perfection, I'm reminded of P.J. O'Rourke (like him, or not!), who wrote something along the lines of "The liberal loves the masses, but actually hates the individual."

As Thomas indicates, everything begins and ends with the individual. All mistaken thinking starts with viewing the human being as a horde - 'top-down' thinking - instead of 'bottom-up' from the Single, to the few, to the many.

As they say in sport "keep your eye on the ball", and the ball in this case is the concept of Man, and what is fitting for his life -- not the concept of "Men." Extend this concept to you, and your life alone, and you will understand Individualism. Extend the same concept to many people and you will appreciate Capitalism.

It's a radical shift in perspective at first, but with practice it soon becomes second nature.

[ex_banana-eater]

Can you say for certain you do not have slaves?

Yes, I am absolutely certain I do not have slaves.

[VECT]

Oh wow, what a clusterfuck this thread has been.

From newthoughts' posts the guy's misunderstanding and fallacies of the topics at hand does not stay in politics alone but goes all the way back to ethics, maybe even metaphysics and epistemology, maybe.

http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page

Read it, beginning to the end. It will help you a lot more than try arguing anything in this thread, when you don't even know exactly what you are arguing about.

[newthoughts]

Oh wow, what a clusterfuck this thread has been.

From newthoughts' posts the guy's misunderstanding and fallacies of the topics at hand does not stay in politics alone but goes all the way back to ethics, maybe even metaphysics and epistemology, maybe.

http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page

Read it, beginning to the end. It will help you a lot more than try arguing anything in this thread, when you don't even know exactly what you are arguing about.

To correct the problems that spillovers created, Mr. Pigou advocated government intervention. Where the social value of an activity was lower than its private value, as in the case of a railroad setting ablaze the surrounding woodland, the authorities should introduce "extraordinary restraints" in the form of user taxes, he said. Conversely, some activities have a social value that exceeds their private value. The providers of recreational parks, street lamps, and other "public goods" have difficulty charging people to use them, which means the free market may fail to ensure their adequate supply. To rectify this shortcoming, Mr. Pigou advocated "extraordinary encouragements" in the form of government subsidies.

-wsj

My god there may actually be a point reached when the government can no longer subsidize anything because it has already nationalized and taxed everything. It’s the world of fiat and altruisistic mentality perhaps.

I read Rand’s Atlas Shrugged many years ago as a teen and I didn’t realize that there is possibly an actual philosophy for me until much later. Most state run schools are super heavy on postmodernity, while many students aren’t really exposed to other forms of ethical reasoning. Scientific reasoning helps to balance the load but it’s still very incomplete when having to form ethical minds.

The ethicical conclusion that I’ve reached is:

I would have to boycott my beliefs of individualism to think I could extend to an individual death. I've decided that a person can ultimately choose actions to die, (even those that have lost their minds), and that I'm not morally obligated to be concerned one way or the other. The dilemma I suggested is deeper since it involves subjugating individuals to the collective. There are many examples of this: imminent domain, draft, taxes etc. We all know this is a disaster in the US as we claim to be extending mercy or benifits to those at the cost of others who did not wish to opt out of the democracy or participate. I've decided a plan that no matter effective and no matter how merciful cannot be the cause of subjugation of an individual that is part of the collective with no ability to persist and opt out.

It would also be unethical, if I believed it was my purpose to assist those who are disadvantaged, and I did not do so, (as long as I did not abandon my moral beliefs). For instance now I would not vote for a voluntary euthanasia program since it would demand the efforts of the collective. I also would not vote for a plan to limit child births to two per couple no matter how valuable this would be civilization.

On overpopulation:

There is plenty of empirical evidence suggesting that the global population will smash through the 7 billion mark. Looking at the graph of this phenomenom, as well as the chart relating to immigration to industrialized nations over the past century, one cannot avoid noticing how they ramp straight up. Now given the economic, governmental and ecological logistics involved with such an event, maybe the disbelievers of the evils of overpopulation can find a middle ground.

Suprisingly it is not a middle ground that I found with my ethical reasoning. It’s a very absolutist perspective which could site not only something as simple as conscription, but all government, as unethical. Now this would be a scenario far from realistic. However, I’m finding that it’s very important when thinking about morality to consider the fine balance between altruism, the collective, the indivual and free markets.

Thanks for the link I’m reading through it.