Excellent! Thought provoking on many fronts. As a staunch environmentalist, who went to school when the dire warnings of Paul Ehrlich caused a lot of people around the world to consider, and to fear, the implications of the human population explosion, I am confused by points made about the paradoxical danger of delaying child bearing to later age. This was one of the tenets of the zero population growth advocates. Are there real economic concerns over... what do you call it-- an "overaged society?" Your own brother cited some such impending disaster which was predicted for China if they kept up their one child policy, which I never understood.
Macroeconomics is very far from my area of expertise; and as an ecologist, I have learned to abhor the great, bloody burden of humans on the Earth. Small is Beautiful, and the less of us the better!
Please educate me out from under crushing weight of my pessimistic misanthropy. *
*Though my bad impression of the human species makes me unpopular, I frequently recall the saying: "A pessimist is just a realist in full possession of the facts."
Ian, you've skewered the target again. I put that very same question to Peter Singer, who I assume you know as one of the founding fathers of "species-ism" and the author of "Animal Liberation" (among many other works). There are some ethicists (like you) who believe that, the fewer human individuals there are, the better for all concerned. Some go so far as to suggest that zero human presence might be best, ethically speaking, if we take into account the broader interests of other species, the planet and possibly the solar system. I'm not sure Singer goes that far. In the case of the narrow long-ago essay in question, I think he considered only the interests of the three categories described, and he quickly discards the category of "species as a whole" as irrelevant. On the basis of the combined interests of present and future human individuals, he argues against the "artificial" effort to extend human lifespans today. There are a lot of questions buried in there. One is the meaning of the word "artificial". Another is the issue you raise (non-human interests, which he more than anyone understands the importance of). In a brief email, he told me he wanted to reexamine his argument from the perspective of a chronologically older person, and possibly write a new version (which would presumably address your and related questions). I told him I would look forward to reading it. If you're interested, he has Substack newsletter called Bold Reasoning, and I am now subscribed. (It is free, unless you want to make your paid subscription go to charity.) Thanks for weighing in.
PS- Another question I raised was, while there is a minimum “floor” age constitutional requirement to run for US president and a chronological “ceiling” age is probably a political nonstarter, what might an appropriate biological/mental age ceiling test be for would be presidents? Because clearly the current chap has blown right through it.
Excellent! Thought provoking on many fronts. As a staunch environmentalist, who went to school when the dire warnings of Paul Ehrlich caused a lot of people around the world to consider, and to fear, the implications of the human population explosion, I am confused by points made about the paradoxical danger of delaying child bearing to later age. This was one of the tenets of the zero population growth advocates. Are there real economic concerns over... what do you call it-- an "overaged society?" Your own brother cited some such impending disaster which was predicted for China if they kept up their one child policy, which I never understood.
Macroeconomics is very far from my area of expertise; and as an ecologist, I have learned to abhor the great, bloody burden of humans on the Earth. Small is Beautiful, and the less of us the better!
Please educate me out from under crushing weight of my pessimistic misanthropy. *
*Though my bad impression of the human species makes me unpopular, I frequently recall the saying: "A pessimist is just a realist in full possession of the facts."
Ian, you've skewered the target again. I put that very same question to Peter Singer, who I assume you know as one of the founding fathers of "species-ism" and the author of "Animal Liberation" (among many other works). There are some ethicists (like you) who believe that, the fewer human individuals there are, the better for all concerned. Some go so far as to suggest that zero human presence might be best, ethically speaking, if we take into account the broader interests of other species, the planet and possibly the solar system. I'm not sure Singer goes that far. In the case of the narrow long-ago essay in question, I think he considered only the interests of the three categories described, and he quickly discards the category of "species as a whole" as irrelevant. On the basis of the combined interests of present and future human individuals, he argues against the "artificial" effort to extend human lifespans today. There are a lot of questions buried in there. One is the meaning of the word "artificial". Another is the issue you raise (non-human interests, which he more than anyone understands the importance of). In a brief email, he told me he wanted to reexamine his argument from the perspective of a chronologically older person, and possibly write a new version (which would presumably address your and related questions). I told him I would look forward to reading it. If you're interested, he has Substack newsletter called Bold Reasoning, and I am now subscribed. (It is free, unless you want to make your paid subscription go to charity.) Thanks for weighing in.
PS- Another question I raised was, while there is a minimum “floor” age constitutional requirement to run for US president and a chronological “ceiling” age is probably a political nonstarter, what might an appropriate biological/mental age ceiling test be for would be presidents? Because clearly the current chap has blown right through it.