Human carrying capacity

[Skeptic]

The current world population is approximately 6.6 billion people.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

Scientists have estimated that by 2050 the population will be around 9 Billion people.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N ... lation&Cr1

If there are currently people starving and living in poverty due to lack of resources is it really ethical to save them and artificially boost the populations of those regions. If they cannot survive currently, providing a condition in which they can survive and reproduce thus making the regional population higher should only compound the original problem. Thus making the situation worse for the next generation and creating a need for humanitarian assistance in perpetuity.

A number of the humanitarian groups are religious groups. They believe that they are helping these people but the reality is that they are only making it worse for the future of the region. Clearly the best solution would be to move them to refugee camps away from resource depleted zones but that isn't what is happening.

The question for open debate: Is it ethical to provide humanitarian assistance when doing so can only cause more harm than good down the road?

Why save them? If their geographic region cannot support them would it not be more ecologically/economically sound to let nature take it's course?

[GrumpyMrGruff]

Been a bit busy with School. I'm sure you can relate. Almost over though I graduate in May.

Almost done, huh? I'm stuck here for another five years or so. Any plans for after graduation?

I don't really think we can consider a global human carrying capacity. As with all other species the population is governed by the resources of their habitat.

When I say "global carrying capacity," I don't mean to imply some kind of homogeneous population density the world over. Certainly, there will be different population caps in different areas. Hypothetically speaking, however, these local population limits are governed more by our ability (and/or how much we're willing to spend) to import necessary supplies rather than the inherent resources of the region. I was thinking more in terms of there being some theoretical maximum food output we could maintain on the planet given factors beyond our control (total free carbon, fixed energy flux from the sun, etc.) That is to say that there's some number of people we cannot feed without looking beyond the planet's resources. You also make a good point with the water situation - there are many abiotic limiting factors on the ecosphere that must also be taken into account.

I agree that assistance of some sort should be provided for circumstances beyond their control. They didn't end up out there because of their own poor decisions.

This raises an interesting question. What if they cannot be rehabilitated, even with assistance? I set up a strawman earlier (equating population control with human benefits and thus advocating sterilization and/or killing) as an extreme example of the problems with purely utilitarian ethical reasoning. "Sorry Joe, I double-checked the figures in my felicific calculus. You drew the short straw and need to be bumped off for the good of everyone else." This kind of thinking feels wrong to me due in part to my upbringing (where I was taught about our "inalienable rights") and maybe due to some instinctual drive toward in-group altruism. As much as I hate to drag Kant into a discussion, one of his categorical imperative formulations regarding human interaction seems to be widely accepted: 'Treat each man as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end.' How are you looking at this? Do you see these people as down-on-their-luck nonparasites and help to rehabilitate them because you expect them to become productive members of society again (thus providing some kind of utilitarian benefit) or do you do so out of a more because you feel some duty toward your fellow (nonparasite) man. Neither? Both? A hypothetical: Hard working Mary has an accident on the job and is left a quadriplegic. What's your rationale for caring for her or not (as a society)? There are also cases of mental rather than physical impairments to consider. I realize that BSing about philosophy is sometimes less instructive than talking about objective matters, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

Tangent: I think in the long run it isn't really going to matter. As the population of the world increases water is fast becoming our limiting factor. I honestly cannot wait for the day when all of the golf courses go brown and dry. Global climate trends suggest a polar melting is approaching that makes all of that fresh water unusable or very difficult to use, the mountain top glaciers are going too. That will result in less runoff which means less fresh water. It is difficult to make this point in one of the wettest winters in recent years but it will likely happen. I suspect water will sometime in the not too distant future cost more than gasoline.

Tangent to your tangent: Have you ever read the Mars books by Kim Stanley Robinson? They came out about a decade before all the UN reports on fresh water limitations and something similar happens in them. (Of course, people have a mostly-terraformed Mars to fall back on there.)

[Skeptic]

Almost done, huh? I'm stuck here for another five years or so. Any plans for after graduation?

US Fish and Wildlife Service Two years of term BS jobs and then finally a permanent full time position. Thats the plan anyway.

Certainly, there will be different population caps in different areas. Hypothetically speaking, however, these local population limits are governed more by our ability to import necessary supplies rather than the inherent resources of the region. I was thinking more in terms of there being some theoretical maximum food output we could maintain on the planet given factors beyond our control (total free carbon, fixed energy flux from the sun, etc.)

Thats why I broke it down into another subgroup to include locality below region. The items to be imported are produced at the regional level and recieved in the localities therein. We can produce enough food in the US alone to feed the world, we just cannot feasibly export it all to the world. Either because they don't have the money or they lack the technology/storage capabilties to recieve it.

This kind of thinking feels wrong to me due in part to my upbringing (where I was taught about our "inalienable rights") and maybe due to some instinctual drive toward in-group altruism.

It feels wrong because by most peoples standards it is wrong. Analogous to imposed birth control. "Oh I see you have two kids and make less than 50K per year, were going to have to cut out your uterus" People have the right to control of their body, that include living and reproducing.

How are you looking at this? Do you see these people as down-on-their-luck nonparasites and help to rehabilitate them because you expect them to become productive members of society again (thus providing some kind of utilitarian benefit) or do you do so out of a more because you feel some duty toward your fellow (nonparasite) man. Neither? Both? A hypothetical: Hard working Mary has an accident on the job and is left a quadriplegic. What's your rationale for caring for her or not (as a society)? There are also cases of mental rather than physical impairments to consider. I realize that BSing about philosophy is sometimes less instructive than talking about objective matters, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

If rehabilitation to functional is possible I think that it should be done. If the person (who became disabled through no fault of their own stupidity) cannot be rehabilitated to a functional status then they should at least be made to not suffer. The utility doesn't matter as long as they are not parasites to the system. If they are genuinely in need and incapable then they are using the system properly.

Getting back to humanitarianism, I think that if those people were left alone they would find a way. Whether they migrate as refugees or stay and cope with the life they have. An interesting point, They actually probably wouldnt realize they were suffering if they had never been exposed to western ideas and humanitarians who told them that they were suffering. We "civilized"westerners like to go around and impose our standards on other people. We call their ways of life violations of human rights, but that too is a western idea.

Tangent to your tangent: Have you ever read the Mars books by Kim Stanley Robinson? They came out about a decade before all the UN reports on fresh water limitations and something similar happens in them. (Of course, people have a mostly-terraformed Mars to fall back on there.)

I havent read it. I'm not too much into Sci-Fi

[GrumpyMrGruff]

Whew, finally. Even after getting my IP unblocked by OTseng, I've still had connection problems for over a week. Sorry.

This kind of thinking feels wrong to me due in part to my upbringing (where I was taught about our "inalienable rights") and maybe due to some instinctual drive toward in-group altruism.

It feels wrong because by most peoples standards it is wrong. Analogous to imposed birth control. "Oh I see you have two kids and make less than 50K per year, were going to have to cut out your uterus" People have the right to control of their body, that include living and reproducing.

This seems to be the crux of the matter. We're basically saying that all people have a right to live... unless they can't. Realistically not everyone can be helped of course, but it seems to come down to either adherence to some universally applied ethics (however arbitrary) or a more utilitarian view (espoused in the OP). I would argue that if some universal ethics is to be applied, then people do have a right to live (and should receive aid). But they don't necessarily have an unlimited right to reproduce. You correctly point out that there are limits to how many people can be supported and (to make a convoluted ethical argument) it would not fair of them to deprive future generations of this opportunity by creating overcrowding.

If rehabilitation to functional is possible I think that it should be done. If the person (who became disabled through no fault of their own stupidity) cannot be rehabilitated to a functional status then they should at least be made to not suffer. The utility doesn't matter as long as they are not parasites to the system. If they are genuinely in need and incapable then they are using the system properly.

I could see the reasoning here being something like, 'they "paid into" the system by being productive members of society; now they are getting the care they've earned.' However, I think some sticklers for cost-benefit analysis might feel compelled to lump them in with the parasites now that they're no longer contributing.

Getting back to humanitarianism, I think that if those people were left alone they would find a way. Whether they migrate as refugees or stay and cope with the life they have. An interesting point, They actually probably wouldnt realize they were suffering if they had never been exposed to western ideas and humanitarians who told them that they were suffering. We "civilized"westerners like to go around and impose our standards on other people. We call their ways of life violations of human rights, but that too is a western idea.

I posed your OP questions to some friends a while back and this is actually where the conversation went. One friend is a sort of hippie anthropology major who is in love with the idea of the the noble savage (ugh). He made the same case. (Though it's pretty much a woulda/coulda/shoulda to start talking about withholding Western intervention now that it has infiltrated even the most remote Amazon tribes.) My friend argued that many cultures "just want to be left alone" to follow their own traditions, but I would counter that many such groups often try to adapt parts of western technology to their way of living - foodstuffs, basic medical care, transportation.

My favorite example is the adaptation of nomadic Himalayan yak herders to China's mid-20th century attempts to modernize them. Some now drive trucks along with their herds; others build houses and drive into the mountains to their pastures. Even those who maintain a nomadic lifestyle would be sunk without modern transportation these days.

Arguably, these groups achieved pre-technological population stability not by some idyllic balance with nature (as my friend suggests) but due to high infant mortality and competition for resources. If you want to address this pragmatically, than you have a point here. However, your OP addressed the ethical dilemma of contributing to conditions which will cause suffering. I'm not convinced that it is more ethical to stay "hands-off" and allow suffering to continue (in the form of infant mortality and preventable illnesses) than it is to intervene (responsibly, including education resources) to alleviate that suffering.

I haven't read it. I'm not too much into Sci-Fi

I won't go so far as to recommend it. It's a pretty dry series. But it does use ecological disaster on Earth and a tight resource budget on Mars to address some of the things we've been discussing.

[Skeptic]

Very good points!

However, your OP addressed the ethical dilemma of contributing to conditions which will cause suffering. I'm not convinced that it is more ethical to stay "hands-off" and allow suffering to continue (in the form of infant mortality and preventable illnesses) than it is to intervene (responsibly, including education resources) to alleviate that suffering.

I'm not necessarily saying "hands off"and don't give flu shots. My line of thinking was more along the lines of exporting our welfare system. The aid we provide creates an artificial economy and doing so reduces mortality and increases fecundity. Or so it would seem. Perhaps education and agricultural training and perhaps a weaning them off of welfare/aid would be the solution. Of course it would probably be wise to test this hypothesis at home with the welfare parasites of our own country first.

[Cathar1950]

Very good points!

However, your OP addressed the ethical dilemma of contributing to conditions which will cause suffering. I'm not convinced that it is more ethical to stay "hands-off" and allow suffering to continue (in the form of infant mortality and preventable illnesses) than it is to intervene (responsibly, including education resources) to alleviate that suffering.

I'm not necessarily saying "hands off"and don't give flu shots. My line of thinking was more along the lines of exporting our welfare system. The aid we provide creates an artificial economy and doing so reduces mortality and increases fecundity. Or so it would seem. Perhaps education and agricultural training and perhaps a weaning them off of welfare/aid would be the solution. Of course it would probably be wise to test this hypothesis at home with the welfare parasites of our own country first.

Given 70% of those parasites are children it seems there might be a better solution then punishing parents by withholding aid and calling it weaning.
Given many have disabilities and the fact there are not enough jobs to go around which keeps labor cheap so corporations can amass more wealth and eliminate those that compete, I would think the real "parasites" are the major corporations. Yet there is no end to how much we will spend to insure their health and wealth including bombing the crap out of others. I recall the old saying; give a man a fish and you feed him for a day teach him to fish and he can catch his own might work unless someone owns all the fish, rod and reels, and water they pollute. It is hard to farm when all the land is owned by corporations and developers.