(July 11, 2015 at 12:07 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: ...

If I had the choice between extinction and anything else at all, I would choose anything else. This is obviously the thing to do.

I have seen people post such sentiments before, but I do not agree at all.  There are things that are worse than dying, and there are things that are worse than the extinction of the human race (which, however, is not part of the poll, as millions of people starving to death does not necessarily entail human extinction).  I happen to think, though, that not having children is not one of them.  Some others seem to disagree.

(July 11, 2015 at 12:07 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: Your having children doesn't mean anything at all if those same children will grow up to die of hunger or because of some other closely related factor one day.

Certainly, if one knows that one's children will starve to death, and one is able to not have them, then it does seem like it is less than a good idea to have them.  Apparently, though, several people believe that the right to have them anyway trumps such considerations.

My guess, though, is that they are not thinking of it that way, and are thinking of other people's children starving to death.  That, too, reveals interesting things about people.

(July 11, 2015 at 12:07 pm)excitedpenguin Wrote: We have rights, yes, but those rights don't mean anything in and of themselves. This is especially true if by having these rights you are giving up other, more important rights in the process[or if you are at the same time imposing on other people's rights]: like the right to live for example.

The idea of the relationship between one's rights and the rights of others is central to the question.  When rights come into conflict, it is interesting to see which rights different people regard as paramount, and even more interesting when they explain their reasoning on the subject.

(July 11, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sorry. I still don't think that requiring vaccinations for kids who want to attend public schools in any way shape or form equates at all with the government stripping away a person's right to have children by permanently sterilizing their bodies by force.

I have just explained some similarities.  Are you saying that there are no similarities?

Of course, it is not exactly the same thing.  That is true of everything that has even a slight difference from other things.

It's not just not exactly the same thing. It's a worlds of difference. It's the difference between something minor and something extreme. This seems so basic, I am at a loss for words...

(July 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If the blue underlined line on your post stands alone as its own principle, all kinds of heinous things can be "justified."

Such as?  And how so?

...Such as having a government that takes people from their homes by force and sterilizes their bodies against their will, stripping them of their inherent right to have children as a way to "avoid starvation" due to overpopulation.

(July 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:   Just because something being done in a small, relatively insignificant way is acceptable, doesn't mean the super extreme of it is acceptable. I shouldn't even need to argue or further explain this.

You mean you believe that everyone should just take your word for everything and just agree with you no matter what you say?  If not, then you do need to argue and explain.

You also have not answered the final question of that post.  Do you believe you have the right to cause other people to starve to death?  It is a simple 'yes or no' question.  But by all means, feel free to explain and elaborate your answer, if you wish.

I did not answer that question because it is a loaded question. If starvation happened in your scenario it would be a natural consequence of something that in and of itself has nothing to do with starvation: having the right to decide your own family size. It's not like I would be directly taking away a person's right to eat by having a kid. With that being said, I do think the right and responsible thing to do would be to plan your family size according to what's best for the world. But the government should have no business sterilizing people's bodies by force. As PT said, I would take my chances with the natural way of things than live in a world with such a government that is tyrannical enough that it treats its people like cattle and strips them of their humanity and basic rights.

And everything I just said here is a repeat of what I have already said. You asked for opinion, and I gave you mine. If you can't accept my answer then I don't know why you asked in the first place.

(July 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: ... It is not based on death of the individual, but on species extinction, and the reason that this is an important nuance is because the argument in favor of forced birth-control for humans is not based on the preservation of individual lives, but on the species as a whole. ...

No.  If millions of people starve to death, that does not necessarily entail the extinction of the humanity.  The choice is between millions of people starving, and between people being forcibly made sterile.

This can be examined in terms of animal overpopulation.  When that occurs, then many individual members die of starvation and such things, but it does not necessarily mean that all of the members of that species die.

A brutal experiment could be done (which I hope no one does, but probably someone already has done something similar) with rats in a very large enclosure, with enough food for a thousand rats being delivered each day.  The rats would likely overbreed and exceed the food limit, with very nasty results.  The rats would likely fight and kill each other over food, and would also likely eat each other as well.  My guess is that this would not cause the rats to all die off, and, if that is correct, there would be no extinction, just a nasty, brutal existence for the survivors.  Eventually, perhaps, the rats would evolve to not overbreed, but unless and until that happened, there would be a very gruesome situation.

I voted for option 1, cause that is the best way to have them suffer and in turn corrupt their souls.


Anyway:
1) People in general are stupid, and illiterate/home-schooled people tend to be stupider. Plus it is human nature to do exactly what they are told not to do, so the second solution would simply fail if people don't understand the cause and yet are forced to obey.

2) Why do you think the population growth is much higher in third world countries and among the poorer circles of society? The simple answer is, it is more profitable for them. For example, more children means more income from child welfare grants., in places where child-labor is a thing, more children means more earning opportunities for the family, and so on.

Thus the easy solution to the problem is to let people take care of there own mess. When the government stops helping people rely on their children, and when it is made clear that having a educated child is much more beneficial than a horde of uneducated brats, people will instinctively change their ways.

I'm a glutton, so take a quick guess which option I voted for.

(July 11, 2015 at 1:24 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(July 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: ... It is not based on death of the individual, but on species extinction, and the reason that this is an important nuance is because the argument in favor of forced birth-control for humans is not based on the preservation of individual lives, but on the species as a whole. ...

No.  If millions of people starve to death, that does not necessarily entail the extinction of the humanity.  The choice is between millions of people starving, and between people being forcibly made sterile.

I find it hard to swallow any justification of the actual dehumanizing of people based on hypothetical fears of mass starvation or other results of overpopulation.

Mind you, I'm not saying overpopulation is not dangerous. I'm saying that I would vote "no" in the OP scenario because I think there are other, more humane ways to address the issue.

My apologies for extending it to species extinction. That clearly wasn't in there, and was me inserting my own reading. I'll be more careful next time.

(July 11, 2015 at 10:24 am)Chuck Wrote:

(July 10, 2015 at 10:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Trying to separate the deontologists from the consequentialists?  I'll take my seat with the former.

Ultimately nothing can be right or wrong except through appeal to the desirability of its consequences.  To argue think something can be right or wrong in itself without regard to its global consequences is to shatter any pretense to relevance of the very concept of right or wrong.

"The ends justify the means" - agree, or disagree? (I happen to disagree, YMMV.)