Thursday, October 29, 2009

Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Nov. 3 by Hardin, Murdoch/Oaten, and Engel.

Lets not crowd the Earth simply because we can...

After reading Wolf’s essay Population and Environment, I’d have to say that I most strongly identify with the Condorcet side of the Condorcet-Malthus debate on how to handle rising populations – and, in general, I agree with Wolf’s analysis of the debate overall. I should start by saying, however, that I don’t agree with Condorcet’s view that an increase in knowledge or scientific understanding will necessarily get us closer to approaching perfection. (I’m not one to believe in individual human perfection or perfection of the human species as a whole – my view here, I think, is commonly held, far less naïve, and not without plenty of support simply by the general absence of perfect beings – therefore I’m going to take this premise without further argumentation, though I’d be happy to hear any claims that can support the opposite.) I do, however, agree with Wolf/Condorcet’s conclusion that educating the poor and creating social and economic equality for woman (and in general) would be the best way to implement policies for fertility reduction. Concern for human development and education seems to be a more humane way to deal with population and fertility issues rather than waiting for a Malthusian "misery" in which overcrowded populations die out from starvation.

On the Malthus side, I don’t agree that helping the poor would necessarily increase the rate of reproduction, if only because I’m given no real reasons why that would be the case. It seems possible that Malthus might argue that helping the poor creates better conditions for reproduction – that well-off people are more likely to reproduce – but I’m not really sure I see how he fills in the logical jump. Why would it necessarily increase?

I agree with Malthus in that I think there is a carrying capacity for the amount of humans that can survive on earth. I do not, however, think it is stable (because of technological changes) nor do I think we should go anywhere near it. Debates about whether there really is a carrying capacity seem to stem from the view that the word “resource” is ambiguous and that therefore we could consider human rationality, ingenuity, and creativity as a resource, and that if humans kept reproducing we would keep gaining resources and thus not have a need for a carrying capacity. This, to me, is wrong. First, while human ingenuity is a resource it undoubtedly has limits and can’t grow infinitely. Overestimating the degree to which we can aggravate population problems and assume will be able to slip our way out of trouble over and over is imprudent and bound to fail. Second, there are some resources our ingenuity or creativity probably can’t find substitutes for such as space, oxygen, etc.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Parental Licensing

Lafollette presents a rather radical idea, probably even more radical when he wrote it thirty years ago, but radical does not imply bad. Nor does it imply impossible. I feel Lafollette's piece defends his view with good detail and articulation, though there are several other areas in which he could garner support. For one he can play to peoples' idea of equality and egalitarianism. Above most other factors in life (if not all), the raising of a child in a situation where he will be abused physically or psychologically puts them at an unbelievable disadvantage. Children ignored, abused, or not nurtured in a positive way will surely lead a worse off life than most anyone raised in the opposite household.

One could argue though the parents would be treated in an unequal fashion. Again we can look to the cases of physicians though. People would disagree if we treated everyone equally in allowing them to perform surgeries, etc. Lafollette points this out and it makes very good sense. The only problem that could arise from this thought process is that unlike perofmring surgery, being a parental figure is a right.

The idea that people have a right to have children and have a family doesn't seem to have much backing. The arguments for people having rights to do so simply do not seem any deeper than 'because we say so'. Yes, people are designed to have children, but if we want to look at things biologically, people are also designed not as good in some aspect or another as someone else. This should than transfer to people and their ability to raise children. If you are simply not capable relative to an average standard at raising a human being, you should not be able to at the time you're deemed incapable. Obviously one can work at this and become acceptable at raising a child, but the amount of responsibilities that people must deal with when raising children is astronomical, and the ill effects parents can have on children reach far beyond to the child's adult life, and in many cases others around them.

Arguments Against Licensing Parents

I disagree with Lafollette’s claim that we should grant licenses in order for people to become parents. One problem with his claim is that there is a difference between licensing physicians who harm actual people and stopping from licensing parents who harm theoretical children. The difference is that those children do not exist and are disallowed the choice to exist. It is impossible to tell whether the children would choose life or death. It seems hard to say that we are harming them more by not allowing the children to exist.
I also detest the use of a person’s past which is unchangeable and was not chosen. I do not think that how someone’s parents treated them or other things they did not choose should be incorporated into any such licensing because it in no way reflects what kind of decisions an individual is capable of making. It may be very utilitarian due to statistical analysis but it disregards their rights. I find it difficult to believe that if we are born with the ability to reproduce that it should be restricted. It seems difficult to believe that denying people reproductive rights and the right of life to offspring is the morally correct decision. From a practicality standpoint it seems that the offspring that were born to unlicensed parents could be at a disadvantage because they are being taken from their biological parents and it is hard to tell whether they would have been better off with them or not. I wonder how many people Lafollette’s licensing program would hurt for the greater good.

good idea but leads to racism

I agree with the idea that parents should be approved to be parents. At its core, it’s a wonderful altruistic idea. It benefits future children who will one day be adults and have power to affect the world, making it a better place. I do think that that racism could arise from this. There isn’t such thing as an unbiased person, so an unbiased person will be doing the judging. The people who are judging will most likely have their based on the mainstream values of our culture, and our mainstream cultures and values are influenced mostly by white culture and values. The judges can first look at people and base what they think of them on the way they talk and dress. This will not jive with what the judges think to be good and morally proper because it doesn’t fit into mainstream culture; they will deny them the right to birth children based on this and not their capacity to be a good loving parent that fits into good behavior. Of course this won’t happen all the time, not even half of the time but it is still a concern. It is a subtle form of eugenics, weeding out the lesser more violent brut races and the proper race (whites) will survive.
There are measures to take to avoid this. One, If there is a minority candidate being interviewed, make sure there is representation of the same race if they are being judged by a panel of people. Two, for the people who interview, have them go through learning programs to understand minority cultures through learning their traditions and values

Loose Ends for Licensing Argument

Lafollette's piece, Licensing Parents, takes an interesting and daring approach to addressing certain social problems and dangers by suggesting implementing licensing policies that regulate who and who cannot be a parent. To be licensed parent, must be competent and must not show signs of or clear capabilities of violence, neglect, or abuse. Because parenting can potentially cause harm, it's act should be regulated much like other possibly dangerous acts that we have regulated in society today (driving, practicing law, practicing medicine...). Even though denial may cause disappointments or inconveniences, those innocents that end up protected is more important. Lafollette wants to maximize the good (for common well-being of children).
Well I agree with his idea of bettering society to protect our youth and prevent mistreatment, his general arguments for the licensing and lack of details about the process makes it a hard idea to follow. Too many questions remain unanswered, too many variables are unaccounted for, and too many of his justifications aren't strong enough. I will first address three responses to "practical objections" that I am not satisfied with, and then will state a few additional problems I found with his piece overall.
In response number 1, Lafollette claims that he understands the difficulty in assessing who is a fit parent and the criteria involved. He states that weeding out the unfit, bad people is more feasible and that, "we undoubtedly can identify the bad ones-those who will abuse or neglect their children". But how can he be so sure of this? Assuming he is relying on connecting this system to other regulatory process we have today, there is no way he can support the notion we can positively identify such harmful individuals. For example, citizens in society that have gone through a type of licensing/testing/regulations to ensure they are trustworthy and respectful, knowledgeable, and sane, and able to care for others (children) have repeatedly shocked and disgusted us. Priests have molested children, teachers have had sexual or abusive relations with students, and doctors have committed malpractice in a number of ways. If they can make it through, anyone must have some shadow of a doubt in weeding out such individuals.
His response to objection 2 has to do with predicting who will maltreat. He knows there is no sure way, but that we can use present tests to filter out who has bad characteristics for parenting, such as if people are "easily frustrated", or perhaps impatient, and so on. I am interested in what he would say to people being medicated to control these traits-if they are still suitable if they have already been medicating, if they will be approved if they agree to medicate, and if so, which drugs are OK to take. Further on, he announces a potential testing system that will accurately predict maltreatment through a "longitudinal study". When they are followed to see if they abuse their children, what are the chances parents will act normally under observation? How will they get people to volunteer to do this?
Objection 4 brought up the problem of "testing procedures [being] intentionally abused". Lafollette says there's always a chance for that and responds with the fact that parental licensing systems won't necessarily be more abused than "driver's license tests". It is impossible to put these two possibilities on the same level. To deny or slow the process of being able to legally drive a car is not the same as one individual infringing upon the right for a person or couple to conceive a child. It is a matter of life, not easier way of transporting oneself.
A general lack of specific details for the policy Lafollette proposes leads me to ask a few questions that I feel he should acknowledge or try to mention/attack...
For instance, how often can one apply for parenting? Is there a restriction in total number of times or the frequency? Is the process different in respect to varying cultural backgrounds and religions, the sex and age of the applicant(s), if they are single, in a relationship (not married), married, heterosexual, homosexual? What happens if a non-licensed individual becomes pregnant, impregnates, or gives birth? Are there special circumstances for those who are raped?
Does this policy mean required protected sex (or celibacy?) before being licensed or in denial of license? How can one keep people from having sex? Will the effectiveness of condoms/other forms of birth control be high enough (if no celibacy)? If accidental pregnancy occurs, are abortions enforced, or is giving up for adoption allowed too? If a person isn't found fit to be a parent, are they (accidentally impregnated women) allowed to care for child for 9 months before birth (if adoption allowed)? What punishment is placed on those who conceived unlawfully, and what are the terms based on pure accident, or carelessness, or rape?
I find it impossible to create a policy Lafollette envisions because of the magnitude of variables that cannot be controlled for and the unpredictable outcomes that may or may not result. Such a drastic proposal seems unrealistic in a democracy. Instead of "advocating the more strict form of licensing", it may be advantageous to advocate in the most attainable way of protecting children and get more immediate results with less intrusiveness and more acceptance. Education, communication, and facilities that help/heal abused and abusive individuals should be increased and improved. A sense of safety, awareness, power, and knowledge may prove to be more effective additions to our society rather than a system that is invasive, controlling, not necessarily needed (in its extreme form).

Parental Licensing Good in Theory, but Not in Practice...

In his essay "Licensing Parents,"Hugh Lafollette does a great job making his argument, creating potential objections, and then responding to those objections. Despite his very clear rationale, I may have to disagree with his proposal that all parents be licensed. My first objection is that there is a great potential for abuse of the test, rendering it invalid. He addresses this objection saying that perhaps administrators would fail potential parents they didn't like, but that those potential parents could retake the test. My issue is with the contrast: that potential parents, given the opportunity to retake the test, could learn to beat the test (no pun intended). Therefore, unsuitable parents could achieve licenses with a little work. My second issue is another that he addresses, but unsatisfactorily. Despite the good intentions of this process, it is entirely possible, and probable, that people will conceive children outside of this system. The analogy he makes to doctors practicing medicine doesn't hold up because one can still conceive a child without a license. He briefly mentions the possibility of taking away a child conceived outside of the licensing system. I am strongly opposed to this idea. This would be traumatic for both parents and children. His idea of creating incentives for licensed parents addresses this potential complication, but then completely defeats the purpose of the initial proposal. If a parent can have a child without a license and suffer only higher taxes, etc., bad parents can still reproduce. Without licensing being mandatory, children could still potentially be born to abusive parents. And because I don't think the licensing can be made mandatory, since people can still conceive without it, the proposal falls short.

Parenting licenses: "Protecting" the innocent?

I found the LaFollette piece both interesting and exasperating, in that despite understanding most of his reasoning, I still disagreed with his fundamental argument. He dismisses the severity of this plan, declaring the restrictions of licensing parents as seeming “relatively minor.” To the contrary, his intended plan would be limiting an action which throughout the majority of history has been seen as a basic right. Despite whether or not right to bear children is a basic right, society would not take these restrictions to be “relatively minor.”

He states that restricting parenting licenses is meant to protect innocent people. But it seems that instead of protecting innocent people, his plan would take away the opportunity for these innocent people to even exist. His idea of protecting the innocent involves preventing them from being given the chance to exist. In fact, his plan seems to assume that these future-beings would be better off to never have lived than to have been born to negligent or abusive parents. It seems presumptuous for us to assume that, despite experiencing terrible hardships under one’s parenthood, one is incapable of having any joy in life or would rather have not been born.

Granted, pressure to this may come from a quote offered in Wolf’s article. Condorcet argued that men have a duty to give future generations happiness, not necessarily existence. Still, who are we to assume the future happiness – or lack thereof - of beings still unborn, despite any hardships they will face by their parents. To use Condorcet’s belief as support for LaFollette’s piece, we would have to assume that abused/neglected children are never put into foster care or a better living situation or simply don’t find happiness through other means outside of their negligent parents. LaFollette gives statistics that people who abuse children were often abused themselves. However, we cannot translate this as saying abused children will necessarily become abusers. Put simply, we cannot say what the lives of children of “unlicensed parents” hold in the future, so we have no right to ban their existence.

Some criticism my opinion may face is that it does not safeguard society from possible future abusers (children abused). In response to this, I most readily advocate a less strict form of licensing, which LaFollette himself advocated to a lesser degree than his strongest position. Licensing parents is acceptable in itself, so long as it does not prevent unlicensed parents from bearing children. Instead, unlicensed parents should be closely monitored by protective services to ensure the right treatment of the children. In this way, no future children are being denied the opportunity to live, and society will work proactively to protect them.
The idea of having licenses for parenting has obvious appeal, which LaFollette clearly maps out. Yet, I am unconvinced that this is the answer to the issue of children being abused. The objections were well put but I do not think that he answered the second objection, that there is no reliable way to predict who will mistreat their children, sufficiently. I understand that it tends to occur that people who are abused as children are at higher risk to abuse their children. I am not sure, however, that he makes a strong enough claim between those two incidences to warrant restricting those individuals from conceiving. I feel that this is a huge leap to make on a possibility of abuse. I understand that the issue needs to be addressed but does it need to mean the child shouldn’t be born at all? Would it be more appropriate instead to mandate routine counseling and random drop-ins from child services to insure the child’s safety?
Another flaw in his argument lies within the fact that these customs are already in place within the application process of adoption. I concede that this is the case but it is not analogous to the situation he is discussing. He wants to stop children from coming into the world where as children up for adoption already exist. It is like the argument put forth a few class times ago. Does the abused child have a case when saying his parents never should have had him? No, but the adopted child does have the right to say he was wronged when being placed in an abusive family because there is another option. I understand LaFollette’s want to prevent abuse but stopping children from coming into existence is not the way to do so.

It sounds good, but I'm hesitant to agree.

LaFollette’s intentions seem both reasonable and admirable. It would be wonderful if a great deal of suffering could be prevented via a method of parental licensing. Given LaFollete’s examples and knowing that many standardized psychological tests are fairly accurate I think it would be possible to identify individuals likely to be violent, abusive, or negligent. Unfortunately, assessments that are completely accurate all the time do not exist. Some people who deserve licenses will be denied and some who should not raise children will receive licenses. As LaFollete pointed out, similar to obtaining a driver’s license, those who are denied a license can re-apply and if individuals slip through the cracks, there would still be less abusive parents than if the system did not exist. However, I think that he is simplifying the subject by comparing parental licensing to obtaining a driver’s license because the two things are on very different levels. Though the liberties a driver’s license gives a person are very useful, failure to obtain one is not as severe an issue as failing to obtain a parenting license. Reproduction is a very basic human drive and women who would be good mothers who may accidentally be denied a license would likely be devastated. It would be similar to the feeling of loss for most women who are physically incapable of conceiving. Failure to obtain a parenting license would be life altering for many people.
Second, I have concerns that decisions about who does and does not get a parenting license would not be based on personality factors alone. It would be fairly easy for license criteria to shift to a system based on socio-economic status or genetic profiling, which are irrelevant determinants. Though a family’s financial status plays a part in well-being and happiness it is not fully responsible for them, so a person should not be prevented from having a child simply because that person is poor. Also, the fact that a couple may produce a child with a genetic disorder should not prevent them from obtaining a parenting license because there is a greater chance the child will be perfectly healthy and it should ultimately be the parents’ decision to take such a risk. Finally, how would the system work concerning gender? Would both men and women receive licenses? If so, what if a married couple contains a women who is licensed and a man who is not (or vice versa) would they be unable to have children? I think this program sounds good in theory, but cannot be practically carried out.

Mandatory Parent License May be too Extreme

Lafollette suggests that potential parents should be subject to a licensing test that when completed indicates whether a person is fit to be a parent or not. The proposed test would determine the likely-hood that one would abuse one's child. One question that immediately came to mind was what technique the test would use to determine who is unfit to be a parent. Lafollette suggests that a combination of one's history and a specific personality test could be used to determine this. He acknowledges that the test may not be 100 percent accurate, but believes that the benefits out-weigh the costs. I think that while the laws for having a child should be stricter, employing a license test that by law must be completed by all potential parents in order to have a child is too extreme.

There is one particular case in which being subjected to a mandatory parent licensing test seems morally wrong. Individuals who grew up in an abusive home have been shown to be more likely to abuse their children. This would make them a great risk when it comes to allowing them to have children and according to the methods used to test competancy, they would likely fail the test. Failing someone based on something cannot control such as the environment in which they were raised is immoral, despite the risk it may place on that person's future children. It is wrong to punish someone for a past that they cannot control especially when there is no guarantee that they will be abusive.

Another question that is raised, which is not discussed in the paper is who is required to have a license? Is it just the potential mother or the potential father as well. The mother obviously plays a very large role in the child's life, but the father does as well in teaching the child and raising the child. Is he also subject to this test? Lafollette indicates that we need not punish a parent for having a child without a license, but instead just put the baby up for adoption. This seems extremely harsh and leaves me wondering if her means that all babies from non-licensed parents are put up for adoption as soon as they are born like a forced relinquishing of their child. It is cruel to take a child away from its parents without just cause and so I believe that if a form of licensing were put into practice, then it should not be mandatory.

It seems that Lafollette's less extreme parenting licensing policy is not only more practical but more morally permissible. He explains that mandatory license may not be necessary. Instead, individuals who decide to take the licensing test could be given incentives and those who refused could be subject to greater scrutiny by social services. This variation provides people with options rather than dictating what they can and cannot do. In this case the unlicensed mother would only be watched more carefully to ensure that her child is not abused rather than having the baby taken away from her. Equating a person's ability to procreate and raise a child to being competent to drive a car seems far fetched. While both acts performed unwisely can lead to harm of others, having your driver's license denied does not dictate what one can do with their body. Forcing someone to become licensed in order to reproduce infringes upon an individual's rights.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Licensing parents is absolutely a great idea!

I thought this essay was beautifully written and I agreed with almost every point he made. I think he did a great job of addressing some of the major objections to this idea, and for that I agree with the idea even more. Particularly, I liked the way he related the licensing of parents to how we regulate drivers licenses and the tests needed to be taken to become a doctor or lawyer. In society, we expect people to be competent and capable of performing surgery or driving a car, because if they hold the license to do so, we can trust them, to some degree. Granted there are some mistakes that can be made as LaFollette points out, but generally if you go to a licensed doctor, you can feel confident in his abilities to work on you. Therefore, I completely agree that if two people, or even one person, wishes to become a parent, they should prove their competence, abilities, and intentions before being able to conceive or take their child home from the hospital. If we make adoptive parents jump through hoops to get a child that they desperately want and will most likely accurately rear, why do we let incompetent, violent, selfish people take home children that they may not even want or take care of. I think it is ridiculous to wait for a child to be abused for 10 years of its life, until a school nurse sees their bruises, before the child is taken away and put in a foster home to maybe never be adopted, since they are no longer a cute adorable baby. If this child’s parents “failed” the test in the first place because they showed they were not capable of rearing the child “correctly” or showed potential harm to the child; that child could have been taken away and placed into a foster home on day one, been adopted within a few months, and had a wonderful life full of love, with committed, competent parents.
The only objection I have that I feel he didn’t address is when should these people have to be tested? Should it be right at puberty when they are biologically capable of having children? Because if that is the case, then these children will most likely fail since they surely aren’t ready to raise children. However if you wait until a person is pregnant to test them, if they fail what do you do with the child (he somewhat addressed this). And if you wait until they are older but not pregnant yet, say early 20’s and they fail, should you put them on birth control, or just tell them they shouldn’t have sex? It gets a little fuzzy with these technicalities because there doesn’t seem to be a healthy way to prevent people from becoming pregnant that fail the test. And it would be traumatic to give someone a test after they give birth or are pregnant because say the woman fails the parenting test in her 4th month of pregnancy, will she have to finish carrying her baby, only to have it taken from her on the day it is born? I think this would cause major problems and I think foster homes would be bombarded with these children of unfit parents. So, I think the best, yet not the healthiest, way to prevent pregnancies from people that fail the tests is that they should have to get on birth control, for say a year, until they can retake the test and try again. However, this is only controlling the women, what do we do with the men that show to be potentially unfit fathers? Put him in some type of male chastity belt, or make him use some kind of spemicide? These ideas seem a little far-fetched but in general I think the listening of parents should definitely be implemented in some way and I think the government should begin working on the glitches and work out all of the technicalities so we can administer these tests as soon as possible. There are too many unfit parents out there screwing up their kids, we need this test!

Separator post

The posts above concern the readings for Oct. 29 by LaFollette and Wolf.

Monday, October 26, 2009

Gardner, Assadourian, and Sarin all seem to be of the opinion that consumption, while essential to human life and prosperity is leading us into an end that is self inflicted. While I can agree on this point to an extent, that we are using resources way too fast and need to be aware of our actions and their consequences, we also have already taken measures to do so. However, I also feel that consumption can be a stepping stone to finding a way to best sustain ourselves. The majority of the world knows that humans are really cutting down on the ecosystems through urbanization and industrialization. The authors also seem to say that consumption has been able to increase through the raise of communication such with telephones and television throughout the world’s population. Through these technologies, advertising products and other “essentials” can increase a person’s desire to go out and obtain more material items that then cause the increase in production and consumption of resources. This makes this method one of the more predominate themes that is taking up a central place in our lives today. As I read this article, I found myself asking what would be a good way to stop this and find a solution to this problem, but I also often found that a strait solution was sometimes hidden in the facts of what the past dictated about this issue, but not as much for predicting any concepts of the future. Having an optimistic viewpoint at the end, the authors said that,” consumption can act not as the engine that drives the economy but has a tool that delivers an improved quality of life.” Would this imply that the authors still have hope for human kind to find a way through this problem of consumption?

thoughts

(I am not sure I understand 100%, but this is what I got) Jacqueline Kasun argues that population planners have irrational arguments when it comes to attempting to control our families. She argues that their arguments stand between our freedoms to propagate. She begins her article by arguing that the only reason why people believe there is an environmental crisis in the first place is because we are educated on the fact that we are overcrowded. She relates this argument to Garrett Hardin’s “lifeboat” analogy. That we assume there are limitations when “no such knowledge exists.” She states that the reason human beings crowd together, as we did so many years in the past, is because we need to work together as a unit. We need to give and receive together. A critical issue is the government and whether they truly have the right to preside over reproduction. I agree with Kasun that it is tough to make arguments against population growth when the numbers are unknown; however, her article was written in 1988. It has now been 30 years. In such time we have faced wars, different policies, and an environmental movement. The Earth now contains a stunning 6 billion people which is predicted to still increase. We now have the technology, like it or not, that enables us to see the reserves the world still has available, and to measure the death and birth rates of humanity. Even if we cannot predict them all, in another given 30 years we will have breached ever corner of this world. I hate technology just as much as Heilbroner and Kasun seem to argue, but at this point, it may be the only way we can propose a “better” method for population planning. I do not want to turn to governmental rule, especially as drastic as that in Chine, but I do agree that at the rate we are going the growth of population will inevitably outrun the growth of the food supply. However, Kasun does not throw out policy all together. Kasun does believe that we need governmental policy in order to reduce pollution, poverty, unemployment and hunger, but we should not make irrational policies when it comes to families. We just need to be aware of the people who want to use the environment and peoples’ degradation as an excuse to establish their own rule.

Population and Resources

Kasun argues that there are no imminent absolute limits to Earth’s resources, and that increases in the population pose no threat to these resources—I do not believe so does so successfully. She claims that the market will manage resource scarcities by raising prices, forcing individuals to cut back and spend less, while also encouraging producers to make alternatives available. This claim, however, does not take into account that those who use the most resources are also those with the most money, and that higher prices might not dissuade these individuals from continuing to be consistent consumers of the given product. In addition, raising the price of a resource will only affect its availability for so long; it might slow the depletion of the resource, but it could not possibly stop it. As for alternatives, while they must be developed, there are only so many possibilities, and it is not possible to predict that alternatives will be developed before the damage has been done. Kasun also believes that individual families can be trusted to regulate the number of their children; however, human beings are selfish creatures, and there are many incentives, social, emotional, and financial, to having more children. The tragedy of the commons teaches us that humans, in general, cannot be trusted to place the welfare of their society above their own individual interests, and I believe that encouragement by the society or the government, at the very least, is required if families are to have fewer children. Kasun also states that it is an assumption that the Earth’s limits are fixed and known; she denies that any knowledge of such limits exists, and that all that is known is that the types and quantities of resources are changing. Her claim appears counterintuitive, and it does not seem to make sense to say that resources are unlimited—the only thing that could expand our potential resources would be technology or science, and there is no guarantee that advances in these fields would come soon enough to be of any use to us. Furthermore, if it is unknown whether or not there are limits to the Earth’s resources, it seems more intelligent to me to err on the side of caution, particularly given the fact that the population is exploding. Kasun also states that knowledge has enabled us to live in comfort in areas where in the past, others barely survived. It could be, however, that the methods being used to pull so much out of the Earth so quickly will ruin it in the long run, and that future stores are being sacrificed for bounty at the present time. Kasun also fails to mention other changes that humans are bringing about by the population increase. The polar ice caps are a limited natural resource, as is the ozone layer, and I do not foresee human ingenuity solving the problem of their injuries—the economic notion of scarcity hardly resolves these issues. I do not believe that economic concepts have a place, or at least the sort of place that Kasun promotes, in population ethics. Simply because absolute capacity is alien to economics does not mean that it is alien to the issue of the population and the Earth’s resources. Economists determine how scarce a material is by how its price changes over time—I do not believe that this is a reliable method in these circumstances, as any number of factors could affect its price. I would also like to know which authorities use human life expectancy as the best overall index of the Earth’s environmental quality; it seems to me that individual humans could live longer for a time by destroying and taking advantage of the environment.
In Population and Consumption by Gardener, Assadouirian, and Sarin they offer a revealing analysis of the problem of over consumption and the factors which contribute to it. The emphasis that is placed on the human psyche and socioeconomic factors offers a specific explanation for the over consumption that developing and industrialized nations are experiencing. Although both of these factors that lead to over consumption are poignant in the environmental ethics discussion they are selective and incomplete in their considerations. Looking at the psychological factors of over consumption, we can see where the authors of this article fell short of a complete consideration of the true characteristics of this factor.
The psychological aspect of over consumption illuminates social problems but simply considers say the American society as a unified whole. The authors have this to say specifically about the role of the individual and government in the consumption issue: “Individuals as well as policy makers might consider the seeming paradox that quality of life is often improved by operating within clear limits on consumption.” They suggest that the policy makers in government and the individuals of the country are on a unified wavelength, that is to say more specifically that a large majority of Americans would or even could agree on being regulated on such a personal level. Take for example the current hot button political issue of chewing tobacco. There is legislation proposed by democrats to ban the manufacturing and sale of certain flavors of chewing tobacco in the fear that kids may get hooked up this unhealthy substance. It is widely agreed that tobacco is not good for you, yet conservatives say it is up to the individual to make this choice not the government. It is this condition of the American psyche that challenges the arguments of the authors. The fear of losing control over one’s own pursuit of happiness is divided along economic and social lines. Consequently, to suggest that policy making could be a solution to undercut or get around the psychological characteristic of many Americans is inadequate. Since controls on the choices people are allowed to make would come from the government, they would not be received well by many Americans who have entrenched themselves against authoritative government.
Further down the line of the argument made by the authors is their examination of the social health that the consumption culture currently possesses. They argue that even though the amount of people who are considered wealthy has risen significantly, the amount of those who have described themselves as happy has hit a plateau. This leads the authors to conclude that it is not unfettered material accumulation that makes one truly happy, rather it is instead the time spent with family and friends. Further, as a part of their overall prescription to over consumption, they suggest people must think of their decisions and desires in relation to the wellbeing of the rest of the country. It does not seem overly plausible to say that people can start to curb their desires in consideration of the whole. If people in an overconsumption society cannot make decisions that make themselves happy, how can they possibly be expected to desire less resource intensive products for the sake of people they don’t even know. While I don’t have a much better prescription to the problems of overconsumption, it seems most evident that attacking the principle of capitalism or right wing political views will not get your anywhere no matter how right your argument may be. Rather, using the free market as a tool to achieve this goal is possible. Even more possible to the ability to change the way people think, not through argument but through persuasion. Ben Franklin once said in reference to changing the way the masses of the country think is to teach them as if you taught them not. Ultimately consumption is a decision made by individuals, and since more and more people will be deciding whether or not to consume a change must be made in the human psyche. It seems dangerous, but subversion is seemingly the only real possibility for a smooth transition away from cultures of overconsumption.

Kasun

Kasun’s “The Unjust War against Population” is an interesting piece that examines the reality of much of the negative effects we associate with large-scale population increases. I thought that the most credible element of the piece was the variety of statistical data Kasun uses to add credibility to her arguments and it made it difficult to find fault with. However I did have critiques of some of her ideas.

The first was the confidence that she put into widespread individual responsibility when it comes to overall species survival. She stated that “The historical record clearly shows that human beings can act and cooperate on their own in the best interests of survival…”(p.403) The problem is that people are bound by their personal needs and thus bound in their abilities to act in this society. If there is only one food source, despite the fact that its use may be detrimental to the overall population, individuals will exploit it to survive. Even if they desire to act in the best interests of the overall wellbeing of the population, those interests may not coincide with their own survival and thus fall by the wayside. This idea brings to mind the example of the Russian peasants and their desire to eat the edible seeds we read about in an earlier piece discussing responsibility to future generations. While the best interests of all would’ve been to keep the seeds until spring, their personal interests were those of immediate survival. I’m not advocating the elimination of a few for the good of the population, but pointing out those individuals can only be responsible for rational group logic to a degree.

Jacqueline refers to the almost inexhaustible sources of energy of planet provides us with. Therefore she concludes that there is no threat from resource depletion. The problem we are facing now is the clean energy crisis, where the forms of energy that are readily available may inadvertently be harming the environment. Kasun merely flows over this fact, despite that it could be a contradictory effect of large-scale energy usage to sustain a large population. The larger the population, the more energy consumed, and unless new clean technologies are implemented the more environmental impact. I thought that this was a critical point that should’ve been addressed in the whole debate of population impact.

The last point that I thought Kasun drew unfounded conclusions was on pg 410, she stated a number of the positive advantages to having a large population. I thought that a few drew credit, but some I thought were without statistical support. Kasun states that population growth “encourages governments … to devote more resources to education. If wisely directed these efforts can result in higher levels of competence in the labor force.” Just because a society is devoting more to education, such as America has done, this does not equate directly to higher competence levels. Additionally, she states that “one advantage of large cities…is that they are mentally stimulating”. Again, without statistical data backing this up I’m not sure how much credit they lend to the argument.

Overall I agree that there is a great deal of unfounded negative occurrences linked with large populations such as larger politically volatile age groups, something that Kasun mentions. I do not think that a large-scale population is necessarily negative, but just as with anything else it must be managed properly for the best interests of the group. Pollution, resource management, and human rights must all be monitored with any size population.

The Global Hamburger Joint: Vegetarian Options Available

I support Gardner et al. that the “Consumer Culture” has a moral obligation to balance consumption in concern to impoverished peoples. The issue of overconsumption is similar to one person eating two hamburgers, when they only physically need one, in front of another person who has the same dietary need. The frivolity of the over-consumer is immoral because the spurned hamburger-lover could starve, and also because of the ethic of “sharing is caring”.

On a larger scale, the consumption power behind the purchases of grand automobiles, luxurious vacations, and video games can be seen as that “second hamburger”, eaten right in front of the people who need it most. The main factor that ties the two examples together is how we are interconnected in our consumption sources. Our lifestyle choices become more pronounced and influential as our industries spread out over the globe. In the context of a large industrial complex taking resources from many different origins, the rich and the poor can be accessing the same store of products, but with unequal distribution. The resources are assumed to be taken from each others’ environments, or lands, so that everyone deserves a piece. The moral bone-to-pick is that we are taking too much.

Addiction to consumption is the hurdle to jump. I would imagine it to be like untangling a bunch of wires in someone’s head, to try to show them how exactly to live without consuming for consumption’s sake. However, I am still skeptical because of my cold fear of change, utilitarianism and the concept of a “basic good”. I am interested to know how the facts and the education would come together for such a movement, and also how such a seemingly “pleasant” world would work.

The Population Problem

In the article titled “The Unjust War against Population”, Jacqueline Kasun argues that that human population increase is not a problem and that there are still massive quantities of the resources we need on earth to sustain both our current population as well as future generations. Kasun criticizes the metaphor used by some advocates of population control that the earth is like a lifeboat and can only hold a certain number of humans before we run out of resources; she claims that the types and quantities of economic resources are always changing and that even if we were to run out of a particular resource, our technological capabilities would allow us to find and use a substitute. I believe that this argument is too narrowly-focused and ignores critical implications of destructive human behaviors.
It is likely that if we were to run out of a certain economic resource, such as oil, we could still survive and maintain our current quality of life by using some sort of substitute (e.g., nuclear power). However, this is a completely anthropocentric viewpoint; it fails to acknowledge the fact that human beings are not the only things of value on this planet and that there are other organisms which are affected by our actions. For instance, drilling for oil in the arctic may benefit us (at least in the short run), but the more we do it, the more damage we cause to ecosystems and the many non-human species that occupy them. Likewise, the hazardous waste that collects as a result of utilizing nuclear power is also harmful to the environment. It is egotistical to assume that the earth’s resources exist solely for our benefit and that the environment possesses no value other than the utilitarian sort.
Even if exhausting certain resources would pose no substantial immediate threats to humankind, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that our depletion of world resources and the actions we take to go about extracting/using them can have negative effects on the environment. Moreover, given that we are part of the environment, degrading it will eventually have a considerable negative impact on us as well; no matter how technologically advanced we become, we cannot remove ourselves from the larger environment.
If overconsumption was not as prevalent in industrialized countries as it currently is, and if natural resources were more evenly distributed among people around the world, population in itself may not be perceived as such a serious problem. Maybe even more important than controlling our population is changing our economic system and our way of life.

Ignorance is Bliss

Kasun has forgotten one major point in her argument. She states that countries will be better off economically with a larger population but neglects to state the cost. With increasing population and a better economy, there comes a higher standard of living. People then wish to own property, property that they must take from nature. This leads to deforestation. Increasing populations also need more food, and with increased standards of living, there is an increase in choosiness over foods being consumed. The forests and other rich lands will thus fall to industrial farming. One may argue that China’s population has become very expansive, yet their standard of living is low and their food is rationed to a certain number pounds of rice per week. China’s people are oppressed by the government that sets quotas on the number of children a family is allowed to have (passively or actively). Jacqueline Kusan states that she doesn’t think government should interfere with the number of offspring a family can produce, so Kasun would have to give in to one of her convictions to use this argument.
Sooner or later humans will realize that carrying capacity (k) affects them, as well. Population models of every species, excluding humans, show that once a species overshoots its carrying capacity, a large number of the population will die off or have too few nutrients to reproduce. Thus, the population not only reaches the defined carrying capacity but undershoots it. The k for humans was established to be 4 billion people, without the help of intensive farming. The population is over 6 billion people as of 2000 and continues to increase annually. This success is attributed to industrial farms. If humans keep growing exponentially, room will run out for farms, and then it is likely that we will experience the effects of overshooting our k. This will lead to starvation and billions of deaths. Kasun chooses to remain blissful of the situation and apparently wants nothing done to save the human race from their apocalypse.

The Problem of Overpopulation in Kasun

In her article “The Unjust War against Population”, Jacqueline Kasun argues that in spite of a commonly argued position, overpopulation is not a threat to humanity. In her argument she provides shocking statistics relating to the earth’s potential agricultural output, such as that fact that “it would be possible to feed…more than twenty-two times as many [people] as now exist, at a Japanese standard of food intake” (406). While I believe that her argument may face additional difficulties, here I pose an objection relating to the focus of Kasun’s argument, which I believe to be wrongly directed.

If we concede Kasun’s argument that the earth is for all intensive purposes capable of providing humankind with food for thousands of years, or even the position that humankind will never run out of resources (a stronger claim than that argued by Kasun), we would still be left with the fact that these resources are not equally distributed. We can see this in the world today; places where starvation is rampant are in a meaningful sense ‘overpopulated’.

Indeed, as Kasun argues, these cases may well be attributed to other factors. Dr. David Hopper, whom Kasun quotes, writes, “The world’s food problem does not arise from any physical limitation on potential output or any danger of unduly stressing the environment. The limitations on abundance are to be found in the social and political structures of nations and in the economic relations among them” (406). But even conceding this point, it cannot be denied that there are ‘overpopulated’ areas, if we simply take this to mean that there is not enough food for the people living there. So, while overpopulation ‘shouldn’t be’ or ‘doesn’t have to be’ a problem, it still is a problem, regardless.

While it may not ultimately solve this problem of unevenly distributed resources in the way that destroying oppressive political and social structures might, counteracting overpopulation would still meaningfully contribute to this end. So, we could say that while correct, Kasun’s argument is at the same time misdirected. Even if she does set straight misunderstandings regarding the earth’s potential carrying capacity and what this means for the future of earth, we maintain that overpopulation is a problem.

Kasun's alternative could be just as hazardous as she considers population control to be

Kasun feels very strongly that doomsdayers are extremely hazardous to humans and their rights. She poses the "where's the proof to back up their claims" question that seems to always arise against advocates of caution. She seems to think that their lack of proof in combination with the danger they pose to freedom are enough reason to completely prevent population control and caution.
She asks how they can be sure that the market mechanism cannot handle population growth. She seems unconcerned, or at least not concerned enough about the fact that it's a 50/50 chance. It seems wrong of her to suggest that this incertainty justifies a reliance on everything working out like it has in the past, and does not justify a cautious lifestyle to prevent the possible. Also her reliance on this past principle seems ungrounded becuase we are not the same society we once were. We are far more technologically advanced that ever before and that means that we cannot depend on a different society's past for answers to a questionable and dangerous situation.
She asks why families cannot be trusted to adjust the number of their children to the availability of resources. People have shown patterns of caring more about continuing there blood line than the betterment of earth. People are concerned for themselves before others and this is an inevitable fact. The cautious believe in "if it COULD happen, then it should be prevented". There is no denying that things are not in balance right now. The population level is struggling to find balance. It seems as though she ignores the fact that people are already showing that they can't be trusted.
She really comes after the lifeboat capacity policy for its precautionary measures. It seems as though she thinks that they are fools and are trying to control people more than help them. The policy is a selfless precautionary measure for the good of all people and earth.
Lastly, her alternative to the lifeboat policy of increasing food production and distribution and increasing population even further requires a drastic change that will inevitably lead to further exhaustion of earth.