Thursday, October 29, 2009
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
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.
Arguments Against Licensing Parents
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
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
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...
Parenting licenses: "Protecting" the innocent?
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.
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.
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
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!
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!
Monday, October 26, 2009
thoughts
Population and Resources
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.