Why is the supposition that fewer lives is good controversial? What do we owe the unborn and non existent? Surely in any moral framework, if one could prove that additional organisms in an environment degrade the quality of life for all organisms, then it would be a moral decision (in principle) to reduce by attrition the number of new organisms? I am not arguing for population control as the mechanisms to achieve it are themselves morally dubious, but surely in principle we can agree that there is no moral imperative to grow a population, or alternatively that is not immoral to advocate for preventing population growth where it would reduce quality of life and lead to environmental degradation?
If there are more people, it's fine, we should engineer the way to accomodating them without damaging the environment too much.
If there are less people being born, this is also fine, as human population is sort of self-regulating in this regard. Perhaps there is also some engineering needed to adjust for this scenario as well.
But neither growth nor decline are to be regulated in any way.
After decades of 'oh whoops, this new compound we created has enormous unknown consequences, how could we have known' we should just accept that technology is going to get us out of this mess? Count me out, i will fight geo-engineering tooth and nail.
It is not a viable choice, its just the choice that doesn't require any hard decisions or changes.
And what's exactly wrong with that? Assuming that technology works, and it is possible to reverse the environmental damage — why not do just that and keep our life satisfaction? Looks like win-win-win for me.
Given that we have a history of 'start doing it already' that has led to:
- ozone destruction
- plastic pollution in the seas
- potential runaway global warming brought on by fossil fuel use
- use of DDT and neocotinoids
- introduction of pest species that destroy ecologies
do you really think we should be repeating the exact same approach? Because to me it sounds insane.
Our thoughtless embrace of technology has caused much of our current problems - thoughtless embrace of technology will not magically solve them.
And what's exactly wrong with that? Assuming that technology works, and it is possible to reverse the environmental damage — why not do just that and keep our life satisfaction? Looks like win-win-win for me.
reply