But what if a majority of people agrees on a change? How can we decide how large it must be to have its way? It’s a troubling question for me because in political systems such decisions are usually pretty much arbitrary: why require a 70% supermajority vote and not 60% or 80%?
Unless the required supermajority is very near 100% (and has good reason to be so), I’m too afraid of the tyranny of the majority and would prefer a system where each voter actually controlled the proportion of nature that he or she is voting “for”.
This is a mischaracterization of many, if not most, pregnancies.
I acknowledge this problem, but it doesn’t change my conclusion.
The fact that most future people haven’t been conceived yet doesn’t seem meaningful to me, assuming you’re not expecting species extinction next week. Does it matter who they are exactly, as long as they’re people? It doesn’t seem so to me.
But they’re not people. They’re possibilities. They do not exist.
I accept the following reasoning: the future world will contain many new people no matter what I do. I prefer a future world that’s nice for them. That makes perfect sense.
The problem for me comes when people imply that ownership of parts of nature (e.g., tracts of land) should be forbidden. For instance you said,
messing with nature is going to be stealing it from somebody who was entitled to its being left alone.
I don’t accept that people who don’t yet even exist are entitled to a piece of nature I’m using today (if I don’t own it). I don’t intend to die before these future people are born, so I’ll have to share with them. The more new people are born, the smaller my remaining share—even if it’s a time-share or some such instead of a literal piece of the property. I’m willing to share—after all I didn’t create this land, so it shouldn’t be mine exclusively—but only up to some limit.
If the world population is X, and the small country of Breedia invents a molecular manufacturing technology that lets them convert all their mountains into 10X small children, I hope they won’t become entitled to nine-tenths of the world’s resources. I’ll feel sorry for the children and I’ll do everything I can to find them a place to live that’s not too much at the expense of existing people, including myself. I’ll also vote for anyone proposing a singleton that would prevent the neighboring country of Multiplia from doing the same thing next year.
Why do you assume that making the future a nicer place to live will also make it more crowded?
It’s the nature of population that it grows until it encounters a limit—either of resources, or cultural. I hope that future humans will breed more in the presence of more resources, and less in the presence of less resources, but I don’t fully trust this will happen.
Suppose the number and timing of children were limited only by the delay of nine months’ pregnancy, and the costs of raising children were negligible. I expect the world population to rise rapidly and without limit in this scenario.
It’s the nature of population that it grows until it encounters a limit—either of resources, or cultural. I hope that future humans will breed more in the presence of more resources, and less in the presence of less resources, but I don’t fully trust this will happen.
“Either resources, or cultural” makes this claim true but meaninglessly broad, since you can say that any population that fails to expand, but has sufficient resources to do so, is stopping for “cultural” reasons. Thus, populations will keep growing until they run out of resources to expand, or else they won’t. Not terribly helpful.
Much more importantly, you argue abstract resources, not “nature”—the two are quite different. Even if we grant you your assumption that future populations will use any existing resources to increase population, “nature preservation” generally deals with preventing people from converting non-population sustaining resources—squirrels, waterfalls, purple mountain’s majesty—into population sustaining resources—hot-dogs, hydroelectric plants, and coal mines.
Thus, preserving nature should limit population growth while making life more pleasant for existing populations. Within your own framework, this sounds like a win-win.
Nature preservation isn’t once and for all. We can’t really influence future generations not to use the nature we preserved as non-renewable resources, except culturally.
With time, many kinds of resources dwindle, while technology improvements increase the potential value of unused resources. Future generations may want those resources more than we do today.
We can’t really influence future generations not to use the nature we preserved as non-renewable resources, except culturally.
This isn’t really, um, true. We can pass laws, and laws help create and maintain a very powerful status quo. Cultural methods also matter, and cannot be arbitrarily excepted.
But this is all irrelevant to my actual point. Preserving nature means fewer baby-producing resources and more pleasure-producing resources for however long that preservation lasts. If we preserve now, then, ceteris paribus, we expect slower population growth and more happiness vs. if we commercialized that nature now. The fact that preservation is not forever is wholly irrelevant; however long it lasts, it generates a better world than had it not lasted that long, within your own concept of “better.”
You’re presenting the wrong alternatives. It’s not preserving nature vs. letting others harvest resources they will use in part to make babies. Rather, it’s preserving nature vs. harvesting it for myself and using those resources for whatever I want (which does not include babies).
The argument of the OP (and others) which I originally answered, was that nature should be a sort of trust, and should not be exploited by this generation. That morally, we should leave it no worse than we found it for future generations. Hence my argument that I can’t trust future generations.
Preservation is great if we can enjoy the preserved nature as parks, etc.(*) But preservation purely for the sake of preservation isn’t so great, and that was my point originally.
(*) On the market the value of nature as “resources” is clearly higher, in large part because the incentives and responsibilities are all set up wrong. It follows that we can economically harvest all the resources we want and use the profits to set up parks, preserves, etc. which would be tailored to human enjoyment and so much more pleasant for most people than really wild nature.
Suppose the number and timing of children were limited only by the delay of nine months’ pregnancy, and the costs of raising children were negligible. I expect the world population to rise rapidly and without limit in this scenario.
I would need to know much more about what you consider to be the “costs” of raising children (as they are presently) to address this scenario. For instance, if they still take nine months from conception to birth, do they also still take the same number of years from birth to adulthood? Parental attention per childhood is a cost, and one that you don’t get to scale up for greater numbers of children indefinitely without fiddling with time.
I meant all the costs which come down to money. Parents would also be free to choose to pay for babysitters (or TVs, or nanny AIs) to reduce parenting time if they wish.
It’s not at all obvious to me that, even if monetary cost per child approached zero, people would have all the children it was biologically feasible to have, specifically because of the bottleneck on parental attention (but also because many people don’t want children, or want a smaller number for some non-money-related reason). I don’t think a majority of choices about family size have much to do with money at all.
people would have all the children it was biologically feasible to have
I didn’t say that. I merely think that the (world average) birthrates would be well above sustainment level. Three children per family on average would be more than enough for a population explosion.
many people don’t want children, or want a smaller number for some non-money-related reason
Unfortunately, if we have a future of many generations of biological humanity without significant resource constraints, memetic selection will make sure most people do want many children. This must happen as long as some people want many children and can teach most of their children to want the same.
But what if a majority of people agrees on a change? How can we decide how large it must be to have its way? It’s a troubling question for me because in political systems such decisions are usually pretty much arbitrary: why require a 70% supermajority vote and not 60% or 80%?
Unless the required supermajority is very near 100% (and has good reason to be so), I’m too afraid of the tyranny of the majority and would prefer a system where each voter actually controlled the proportion of nature that he or she is voting “for”.
I acknowledge this problem, but it doesn’t change my conclusion.
But they’re not people. They’re possibilities. They do not exist.
I accept the following reasoning: the future world will contain many new people no matter what I do. I prefer a future world that’s nice for them. That makes perfect sense.
The problem for me comes when people imply that ownership of parts of nature (e.g., tracts of land) should be forbidden. For instance you said,
I don’t accept that people who don’t yet even exist are entitled to a piece of nature I’m using today (if I don’t own it). I don’t intend to die before these future people are born, so I’ll have to share with them. The more new people are born, the smaller my remaining share—even if it’s a time-share or some such instead of a literal piece of the property. I’m willing to share—after all I didn’t create this land, so it shouldn’t be mine exclusively—but only up to some limit.
If the world population is X, and the small country of Breedia invents a molecular manufacturing technology that lets them convert all their mountains into 10X small children, I hope they won’t become entitled to nine-tenths of the world’s resources. I’ll feel sorry for the children and I’ll do everything I can to find them a place to live that’s not too much at the expense of existing people, including myself. I’ll also vote for anyone proposing a singleton that would prevent the neighboring country of Multiplia from doing the same thing next year.
It’s the nature of population that it grows until it encounters a limit—either of resources, or cultural. I hope that future humans will breed more in the presence of more resources, and less in the presence of less resources, but I don’t fully trust this will happen.
Suppose the number and timing of children were limited only by the delay of nine months’ pregnancy, and the costs of raising children were negligible. I expect the world population to rise rapidly and without limit in this scenario.
“Either resources, or cultural” makes this claim true but meaninglessly broad, since you can say that any population that fails to expand, but has sufficient resources to do so, is stopping for “cultural” reasons. Thus, populations will keep growing until they run out of resources to expand, or else they won’t. Not terribly helpful.
Much more importantly, you argue abstract resources, not “nature”—the two are quite different. Even if we grant you your assumption that future populations will use any existing resources to increase population, “nature preservation” generally deals with preventing people from converting non-population sustaining resources—squirrels, waterfalls, purple mountain’s majesty—into population sustaining resources—hot-dogs, hydroelectric plants, and coal mines.
Thus, preserving nature should limit population growth while making life more pleasant for existing populations. Within your own framework, this sounds like a win-win.
Nature preservation isn’t once and for all. We can’t really influence future generations not to use the nature we preserved as non-renewable resources, except culturally.
With time, many kinds of resources dwindle, while technology improvements increase the potential value of unused resources. Future generations may want those resources more than we do today.
This isn’t really, um, true. We can pass laws, and laws help create and maintain a very powerful status quo. Cultural methods also matter, and cannot be arbitrarily excepted.
But this is all irrelevant to my actual point. Preserving nature means fewer baby-producing resources and more pleasure-producing resources for however long that preservation lasts. If we preserve now, then, ceteris paribus, we expect slower population growth and more happiness vs. if we commercialized that nature now. The fact that preservation is not forever is wholly irrelevant; however long it lasts, it generates a better world than had it not lasted that long, within your own concept of “better.”
You’re presenting the wrong alternatives. It’s not preserving nature vs. letting others harvest resources they will use in part to make babies. Rather, it’s preserving nature vs. harvesting it for myself and using those resources for whatever I want (which does not include babies).
The argument of the OP (and others) which I originally answered, was that nature should be a sort of trust, and should not be exploited by this generation. That morally, we should leave it no worse than we found it for future generations. Hence my argument that I can’t trust future generations.
Preservation is great if we can enjoy the preserved nature as parks, etc.(*) But preservation purely for the sake of preservation isn’t so great, and that was my point originally.
(*) On the market the value of nature as “resources” is clearly higher, in large part because the incentives and responsibilities are all set up wrong. It follows that we can economically harvest all the resources we want and use the profits to set up parks, preserves, etc. which would be tailored to human enjoyment and so much more pleasant for most people than really wild nature.
I would need to know much more about what you consider to be the “costs” of raising children (as they are presently) to address this scenario. For instance, if they still take nine months from conception to birth, do they also still take the same number of years from birth to adulthood? Parental attention per childhood is a cost, and one that you don’t get to scale up for greater numbers of children indefinitely without fiddling with time.
I meant all the costs which come down to money. Parents would also be free to choose to pay for babysitters (or TVs, or nanny AIs) to reduce parenting time if they wish.
It’s not at all obvious to me that, even if monetary cost per child approached zero, people would have all the children it was biologically feasible to have, specifically because of the bottleneck on parental attention (but also because many people don’t want children, or want a smaller number for some non-money-related reason). I don’t think a majority of choices about family size have much to do with money at all.
I didn’t say that. I merely think that the (world average) birthrates would be well above sustainment level. Three children per family on average would be more than enough for a population explosion.
Unfortunately, if we have a future of many generations of biological humanity without significant resource constraints, memetic selection will make sure most people do want many children. This must happen as long as some people want many children and can teach most of their children to want the same.