More overpopulation

Global over-population is the real issue

By Boris Johnson

I think the question of overpopulation is relevant as the article states. Figuring out what to do about it is the bigger problem. Ethical and implementation problems arise. It is like eugenics. In theory, it works out pretty well, however, when it is put into practice, is where the problems begin. The same goes for prohibition.

            An idea crossed my mind while sitting in zoo learning about advances in medical treatment. People living longer are an obvious result. From this, we have more people living longer and this is a factor in overpopulation I would think. Naturally, over the decades we have eliminated or greatly reduced the “limiting factors” of population such as diseases, plagues, etc.  It doesn’t seem feasible, but scaling back extreme measures to keep people alive such as using life support and reducing medical services for terminal people. There are definite ethical issues surrounding this idea.

            Back to the article, Johnson says that population control is the biggest question. I was annoyed that he never gives any opinion on how he thinks the problem should be fixed until the end. His solution seemed vague as well. I think that education is probably the least controversial solution because education is inherently beneficial. One child policies are to invasive into the lives of people. I think the government has an obligation to protect and keep its people best interests foremost. Education should be that solution to using a one-child policy. Because by doing so they are not intruding into the lives of families in a way that does not directly, benefit them. Yes, they are being used as a means to their own end, but they benefit and it should be universally applicable. Notice the Kantian undertones.

            A close topic to population is quality of population. Eugenics – a good idea with a bad way to utilize. This however fails Kant’s theory pretty clearly. I only bring up the topic because with the one-child policy a problem that came about was which gender is more desirable to have? In China the son normally takes care of the family when the parents get older. With most families wanting boys, I’m assuming from the problem, girls were in short supply so to speak. It created this desirable child almost the way eugenics was based on desirable traits. From the two, issues with who chooses who gets to live and what traits are best make for a difficult implementation. I think the reason the one child policy has worked so far is because there is a greater sense of patriotism that Asian cultures have. A focus on what is best for the country supersedes any individual needs.

            These topics get pretty spread out as you look at them from different aspects. As far as the articles discussion of the issues, I think that a carrying capacity is an issue that we should work on. I'll add more thoughts as they develop.

National Geographic and Over Population

I think that population growth can be a problem in the future. I see the whole issue of what to do as very problematic. First off, in the article is says in a few places that demographers were taken off guard by drops or booms in population e.g. baby boomers. So this means that there are other things affecting population. War, disease, science, and conceptual ideas as it stated all play a role. Let’s say for arguments sake that war and disease had no effect and conceptual ideas were a fad that faded.  Notice I left out science. If we have a population that is naturally inclined to facilitate life expectancy, science is the tool for the job. It has proved that way so far.

I have two ideas or hypothesis’s for this. One being that the carrying capacity would be reached and we would come to a point that would require alternative resources. It is possible those resources would be synthetic foods to artificially increase the carry capacity of earth.

My second idea and probably less likely choice is that we would see a population increase. However, we might hit a “Breaking point” that after the increase of longer living people we would balance out in a sense that the new live to be 75 might average at about 100. And the population birth/death rate might equalize. Don’t forget that the population booms and slow downs are most likely going to be in there sometime.

 This second idea is based on the book, The Singularity is Near, by Ray Kurzweil. My idea isn’t actually in the book but that’s why it’s an idea. The singularity is in essence the fusion of technology with the soma. Our intelligence and creativity will combine to produce essentially bionic humans. I’d love to be around to see this. This would lead to increased population size as well.

However, both ideas produce ethical dilemmas. In the first one, creating artificial animals is questionable. I don’t have any specific comments at the moment. But more importantly the second one creates longer living people. This is problematic. Is there a certain point when the quality of life is defiled and it’d be better for a person to depart? I believe its ok to use means necessary to keep people alive but to what extent?  These kinds of questions are pretty big in regards to the permissibility of the actions taken.  I will be discussing, I imagine, some of these issues in the next paper. Clearly with the amount of literature and arguments behind the questioned posed, there will be substantial work put into the paper. Later on, i may put more thoughts on here. Most likely asuming ones at that and related to the article read.

Hero/ Villain paper thoughts

Unit II Essay Hero/Villain

Bernstein’s article tries to dissect what exactly a hero might be. In doing so he divides the group into physical and intellectual heroes. Aside from the group the person is placed in, it is agreed that said person is held to a higher standard.  The traditional idea of a hero is one whom has great physical strengths e.g. the Spartans, Hercules, Superman, etc. I think that defining intellectual heroism is difficult because it does not always produce quantifiable characteristics. His definition four-pronged criterion for heroism includes “moral greatness, ability or prowess, action in the face of opposition, and triumph in at least a spiritual, if not a physical, form.”

 I am going to use this definition with minor tweaks and explanations to qualify my character. I choose C.S. Lewis for his contributions to literature and thought as an intellectual giant of the twentieth century. However, pending research, I may use the same criterion, apply it towards William F. Buckley Jr., and use him as my character. Both people possess some of the same characteristics that put them into the group of intellectual heroes.