Which philosophers of ethics, if any, have been of use to you?

[More Than A Feeling]

You can say someone like Jesus or a New Age guru like Krishnamurti if you really want to, but I'm talking more about philosophers who came up with essentially secular ethical systems. People like Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Aristotle, John Rawls, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Nietszche or maybe Greek philosophers like Epicurius or Aurelius, who believed in gods, but whose systems did not rely on them.

P.S. you may be wondering why this is religion/theology, instead of, say, "philosophy". The answer is that I am not asking about philosophy in general, but ethics. Since religions have ethics as one of their parts, my assumption is that people who are interested in religions are also interested in ethics.

[Erika]

1. But many people who are interested in ethics are not interested

in religion. Why did you just not post to the religious and their ethics?

[Sedona]

2. Mike Brady

Yeah the dad from the Brady Bunch!

He had more ethics in his pinkie than my parents had in their whole bodies!

I learned many of life's ethical lessons from the MIke and Carol!

[More Than A Feeling]

3. I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

Are you asking why I didn't limit the question to the religious, or why I emphasized philosophers over the religious, or another possibility?

[Silent3]

4. Rawls' "original position" is certainly...

...one of the first things that comes to mind for me when I think about how we should formulate the principles of government, the laws we try to enforce upon one another, and the responsibilities we think we can demand from one another.

[More Than A Feeling]

9. I have "A Theory of Justice", but it intimidates me, and I've barely started it

the times when I've tried to read it. Perhaps I ought to give it another shot.

Thanks for sharing!:hi:

[Silent3]

17. My exposure to Rawls...

...is strictly Philosophy 101. I've never set about tackling the original source material. :)

I've got a lot of the same impatience with philosophy that Evoman and CD are expressing. In the case of Rawls, I certainly think he has some interesting ideas that come out well in the "Reader's Digest" version of his work that I was presented with in college. Not having read anything but short excerpts of Rawls' own writing, however, I couldn't tell you one way or the other how rewarding you might find reading "A Theory of Justice" in its entirety.

My problem with a lot of philosophy is that way one often becomes a Famous Philosopher is by representing and championing some entirely too narrow viewpoint so that you become the symbol for that viewpoint. You hammer incessantly upon one idea or small set of ideas as if you're going to prove that your philosophy regarding those ideas is inescapably TRVE, the way a mathematical proof is true, and produce tons of dry obscurantism in the process.

I'm not saying Rawls in particular is guilty of this -- maybe he's a refreshing departure from that sort of thing. I can certainly tell you that digging deeply in John Dewey in my second semester of philosophy, in a course specifically devoted to Dewey's "pragmatism", was painful. Not that I didn't enjoy the course -- the classroom discussion and a good prof made it a worthwhile class -- but I was left with the impression that a "Reader's Digest" summary of Dewey was more than good enough, that it could providing an interesting and useful perspective, and all of the effort to treat his ideas on Pragmatism as anything more than that was just beating a dead horse.

[greyl]

50. You don't have impatience with philosophizing, only with much of the body of philosphical works?

Is that an accurate way to describe your pov?

[Silent3]

112. That's pretty much what I'm saying

After all, isn't a lot of what goes on in this forum, discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of various religious and non-religious viewpoints, an essentially philosophical discussion?

I think philosophy is at its best when it helps people dig into what they believe and disbelieve, and the reasons why. When it helps people organize their thoughts carefully and define their words clearly. When it helps people see the hidden assumptions behind many viewpoints, including their own.

Beyond those good things, however, there's too much in the world of philosophy that strikes me as whole lot of gratuitous mental masturbation -- the Hammerists churning out thousands of convoluted pages attempting to demonstrate how every problem really is a nail while the Screw Driverists, pretty much ignoring the Hammerists except to occasionally scoff while pointing out the obvious deficiencies of Hammerism, create their tedious tomes dedicated to proving the inescapable fact that every problem is clearly some variety of screw.

[Erika]

5. Your assumption that the religious were also interested in ethics

Says what about the secular?

[More Than A Feeling]

6. Ah, I see the confusion now.

I didn't say that the religious were also interested in ethics. What I said was that I assumed that people interested in religion (that includes both religious and secular people), would also be interested in ethics.

I wasn't implying that secular people were not interested in ethics, if that is what you are suggesting.

[Erika]

7. Many secularists are NOT interested in religion

At all.

[More Than A Feeling]

8. Yeah, that's probably true.

just as it is probably true that many are (and ones who post in a forum labeled "religion/theology" almost certainly are.)

Getting back to the original question, have you a particular philosopher of ethics who has been influential or of use to you?

[izzie]

12. This sounds like my ex

You ask a question and no one gets to that but what leads up to it. It is a sort of shoot the massager type thing.

[Hardrada]

10. Friedrich Nietzsche

Naturlich!

Marcus Aurelius too and Jean-Paul Sartre

[More Than A Feeling]

11. Thank you for sharing!

What does that combination amount to, if you don't mind my asking for an "elevator speech" synopsis? :hi:

[Hardrada]

38. Very strange politics

and nightmares alleviated by the fact that everything is absurd. And then I forget all that upon waking and go about my business uncomplainingly as Marcus Aurelius would commend.

[Evoman]

13. None.

Heh...unless you count my parents and teachers.

Can I be completely honest? I really don't have any interest in ethics or philosophy. I went through a phase where I guess I was a bit interested but a big part of my readings in philosophy (and I've done a lot) have been an effort to "be smart". To be able to talk philosophy with those who were interested. To be able to UNDERSTAND what others were talking about when they brought up Nietzche, Rousseau, Kant and the rest. I even took more than a couple of philosophy classes.

But (and I really don't want to sound anti-intellectual, because I don't think I am) I find philosophy to be mostly mental masterbation, posturing, and meaningless rhetoric or speculation. Its like science without evidence. I have some interest in sociological theory (got a sociology minor in fact), but philosophy...it just doesn't have any teeth. Its something I usually hate to admit, because I like to think of myself as an intellectual.

What use has philosophy, or a philosopher, been to me? None at all. For every philosophical "theory", there is a counter "theory". All in all, it has not affected my life at all.

[cosmik debris]

14. I second that.

My experience with philosophers is that they use 10,000 words to say what should have been said in 50 words. They make up pompous hyphenated labels, which they define vaguely but endlessly. Their stock-in-trade is run on sentences and obtuse analogies. If they are denied the opportunity to use labels, metaphors, or allegories, they are practically illiterate.

I believe in the Bard of Avon who said "Brevity is the soul of wit."

Philosophers seem to be completely witless.

If you want advice on ethics, try George Carlin who said "Don't be a dick."

[More Than A Feeling]

16. That would make him a virtues ethicist.

;).

Seriously, though, I appreciate what you guys are saying, that philosophers communicate badly, and aren't worth the time it takes to figure out what they are talking about, and that it is baseless speculation.

[cosmik debris]

19. It's more than that

Take, for example, the most famous philosophical statement ever made: Cogito Ergo Sum.

What value is gained by that statement? What understanding do we gain by questioning the statement: "I am." Is there any relevant possibility that "I am not"?

To me, that is the perfect example of Evoman's idea of mental masturbation. (note: We non-philosophers like metaphor too, but we can make an analogy in less than 10,000 words.)

[kiahzero]

22. If you want to justify empiricism outside of utilitarianism, it's important.

Of course, if you're just concerned with what's useful, then it's not relevant.

For the record, good philosophers use lots of words for the same reasons that good lawyers do - precision.

[cosmik debris]

23. Just like tissues are relevant to

chronic masturbators.

[kiahzero]

24. I'd forgotten... you don't want to actually have a discussion.

Sorry, my mistake.

[cosmik debris]

25. Indeed, I'm the villain

Because I won't validate your mental masturbation.

[kiahzero]

26. More of begging the question.

"It's masturbation, so it's masturbation!"

[cosmik debris]

27. Well, I was going to help you out,

But you spoiled the mood. Now you will have to handle it yourself.

I've got a head ache.

[Evoman]

29. I'll try to be serious here

(although I kinda find Cosmik Debris' responses funny).

My opinion of philosophy is my opinion...its not my place to tell you or any student of philosophy that they are wasting their time. Hell, my research, in many ways, is really not that important to anybody except a small group of people. It is my OPINION, however, that my research is based in reality and can actually contributes to the human base of knowledge, albeit in a small way. But philosophy....well, there is little to no point for a lot of it (not all, but a lot). In many ways, I liken it to religion...its a construct of the mind, with little basis outside of it. It doesn't help that too much philosophy is close to indecipherable....there is something to be said for being succint and straight forward.

However, I will add that this last complaint is something I complain about on many subjects. I've read a number of scientific papers that take 100000 words to say something very simple. I'm an advocate of "keep it simple"...in my opinion, I think that many people forget that the point of language is communication, and use large, complex words to explain simple concepts. I also think Latin words are occasionally overused.

Again, just my opinion. When it comes to philosophy...I tried, I really did. I took classes, I've read the "great works". But I'm very skeptical about the importance of it all.

[kiahzero]

32. Thanks, I appreciate it.

I honestly used to think the same way - I know I did six year ago - but I'm utterly perplexed about where the change came from. Some of it may be because I'm working far more with mental constructs than I did back in the day; while computer science is ultimately just math, there's something more "concrete" about twiddling bits. It also helps that I'm seeing how various aspects of that incredibly large field of thought known as "philosophy" come into play in my current field. Ethics, epistemology, metaphysics (specifically with regards to identity), and various small subfields all come up on a regular basis. I find myself wishing that I had taken a Philosophy minor in undergrad, because it probably would have been even more useful than the smatterings of knowledge I've accumulated from readings on my own and helping my partner talk out her thoughts on her readings.

I see what you're saying about brevity, and I tend to be a rather brief person myself (my memos usually come in several pages "too short," according to my writing prof), but I think some discussions are dense and inscrutable because the topic is dense and inscrutable.

[toddaa]

34. Most philosophers are bores

But it is the foundation for sciences, mathematics, rhetoric, and politics. All acquisition of knowledge is in one form or another an extension of epistemology, which is one of the cornerstones of philosophy. The study of language itself is a branch of philosophy. I'm reminded of something Charles Mingus, the great jazz composer, said about simplicity. "Anyone can make the simple complicated. Creativity is making the complicated simple."

[Silent3]

36. The problem I see is that there's too much wasted, non-sensical precision

To abuse an over-used analogy, a lot of philosophizing is like trying to nail jello to a tree. A tremendous amount of effort is put into selecting exactly the right size nails and driving them into precise locations in the tree, but all of the jello is still slipping away and splatting on the ground.

[kiahzero]

37. But it's nonetheless important.

Just because it's a slippery topic doesn't mean it should be avoided, in my mind.

[Silent3]

39. I'm not talking about avoiding slippery topics...

I'm talking about pretending you have more precision that you could actually possibly have. Acting like you have indeed nailed the jello to the tree, oblivious to how it has all slipped away from you.

[Meshuga]

18. You guys sound like my wife...

Who makes me feel bad (with the same arguments as you guys) about actually having interest in ethics and philosophers. So, at home, I am an in the closet reader as far as the topic goes and I keep a low profile while reading them so I don't seem uncool.

But I have to admit I enjoy and have "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chop" by George Carlin in my library. The title is a great. It's a grand slam that covers all the major religions in one sentence! I love George Carlin, he speaks a lot of truth.

So many fancy words are used when "Don't be a Dick" says it all. :-)

[cosmik debris]

20. That statement was originally about

Richard M. Nixon

[Evoman]

30. There is nothing WRONG with reading philosophy.

Nor does it make you uncool. For me personally...well, I just find it a waste of time. To each his own ;).

[fedsron2us]

28. There are worse things in life than masturbation

and it won't send you blind.

[Evoman]

31. Philosophers have hairy cerebellums.

Or so I've heard.

[greyl]

51. "Can I be completely honest? I really don't have any interest in ethics or philosophy. "

Can you explain how that quote makes logical sense? Please be honest. ;)

To me, it looks like you're saying you don't like food, though you've been eating some of it all your life. When you say "For every philosophical "theory", there is a counter "theory", I'm left wondering if you have any detactable measure of certainty whatsoever in the myriad ideas in your head that compose your mental and emotional attitude toward reality.
Are you essentially a machine without will, or do you presume responsibility for your actions at least occasionally to some degree?

[Evoman]

52. Well, lets see....

""Can I be completely honest? I really don't have any interest in ethics or philosophy. "

Can you explain how that quote makes logical sense? Please be honest. ;)"


I simply meant that I am not really interested in discussing, nor reading, on the SUBJECTS of philosophy or ethics. I suppose the equivalent in your food analogy is "I am not interested in reading books on culinary techniques, nor am I interested in discussing what makes an eggplant better than a radish". I don't like reading philosophy. I am not interested in discussing philosophical theories. Did that clarify it for you a little?

" I'm left wondering if you have any detactable measure of certainty whatsoever in the myriad ideas in your head that compose your mental and emotional attitude toward reality."

Every philosophical theory (think Relatavism, Constructivism, Post Modernism, Objectivism, etc) has its critics, who champion a "counter" theory. Who's right? What theory best represents reality? Is there even an objective reality? Has philosophy made any headway? Now I understand what you are saying (I think)...each of us has a philosophy, each of us has a system of ethics of some sort. I guess I'm just not, again, interested in the field of Philosophy and Philospohical theory.

"Are you essentially a machine without will, or do you presume responsibility for your actions at least occasionally to some degree?"

Lol...a philosophical question I prefer not to even think about, if its all the same to you. But since you asked so nicely.... I don't know....maybe I am just a machine without a will. Think about it...every experience I have, which I have not been able to control, has guided my "choices"...these choices are, in combination with genetics, responsible for the next set of experiences which I will be subjected to. And so on. Then again, maybe I presume responsibility for my actions because, as a machine without a will, I have had no choice but to take responsibility for actions. So I'm taking responsibilty for my actions because my experiences/genetics have made me, lol.

See, this is why I don't like philosophy. Who the fucks knows why I do shit? If you were a machine without a will, would you even know you were a machine without a will?

[greyl]

54. How DARE you tell me to "think about it"? ! nt

[Evoman]

55. What? Your not going to challenge me on some point or other?

Here I was, looking for a good argument, and you turn into this big wuss. Its been awhile since I've gotten into a good fight on here :evilgrin:

[greyl]

56. I did, but you didn't notice.

Do you have the mistaken impression that practicing logic and analytical thinking have nothing to do with philosophy?

[Evoman]

58. No, no, of course not.

Even science itself has a philosophy at its core.

[toddaa]

15. Nietzsche and Zhuangzi

[kiahzero]

21. For ethics, Rawls.

Ironically, for epistemology, Nozick (who was pretty much categorically opposed to Rawls as far as ethics and political philosophy goes).

[PassingFair]

33. Seneca

I didn't realize I WAS a stoic until I found Seneca
at age 22.

Expecting is the greatest impediment to living. In anticipation of tomorrow, it loses today.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Silent3]

35. I was expecting that someone would eventually bring that up.

:)

[More Than A Feeling]

43. I'm picking up Seneca based on your recommendation here,

and in my "worldview books" thread. If I hate him, you are responsible!:P

[PassingFair]

47. Oops. Post below was meant for you.

Also, J.S. Mill was a life changer, the only MALE
philosopher who seemed to think women were people.

[PassingFair]

46. Well then, I certainly hope you "get" something from him!

For me, his letters could collectively be labeled: "Human Being 101".
Simple man, simple principles, not always so easy to live by....

It boggles the mind that he was Nero's tutor. With a teacher this great,
what a LET DOWN for Rome!

Although he mentions "the gods" it is clear that he counsels self-reliance
in all matters.

I used excerpts from Seneca at my fathers funeral when I gave his eulogy,
and I still keep a copy of his "letters" close by for re-reading, especially
his letters concerning mortality and loss.

[Random_Australian]

40. None. Mathematics, physics and chemistry. That is all I used. The end.

Work out what life is, work out what ethics is, then you know and that is the end of that.

[kiahzero]

42. How do mathematics, physics, and chemistry lead to ethics?

Seems there's an "is-ought" problem there.

[Random_Australian]

44. It goes a little like this:

Information stored in social structures can form a selective temporal algorithm, and ethics is stored in just such a way, so it is subject to the change.

Of course, the output is in the form of what it is highly likely that society would like you to do, and the highest probabilities of a statistically average person of enjoying their life and such rather than commands or imperatives to do something or guidance to a given person, but it far superior to anything else I've tried thus far, so I keep it.

[greyl]

48. No it doesn't, that's just your current philosophy.

Where did you get the idea that ethics are determined by society?

[Random_Australian]

65. Where did you get the idea "no, it doesn't" , and why must you,

in a rather infuriating move, not put anything behind your idea that "no (something) doesn't" and make neither reference to a reason or even to what part of my post you are referring too. GAH! Play nice, would you?

To answer your question with regards to ethics, I think I should clarify what I am saying. More exactly, when thinking through the information changes, one of those was a considerable likelyhood that people would call something "the right way to behave" and that this was under the control of the same interaction as everything else.

In other words, when I say "ethics" in such a context I merely refer to a subjective, stored set of information that people use to make statements about what people should or should not do.

Finally, please explain the use of "just" in your statement "that's just your current philosophy"

Furthermore, in the off chance you want to try to run up against the algorithmic change itself, I must warn you that it relies only on these premises:

Note: In this, "bieng taught" or such is used as shorthand for the complete interaction of any two large systems.

1) Information is stored in them mind of humans. (And animals and such)

2) Teaching someone something instills some probabalistic information change in the mind of the one bieng taught. (And in real processes, it changes many other things as well, but this is all that is needed for the core)

3) A description with at most infinitely many degrees of freedom will be sufficient to accurately describe the probable changes in humans, furthermore subsets of the entire model can sometimes be approximated to be smaller, isolated systems.

4) Social structures that affect the probability of a member behaving in some way (which is pretty much the definition of social structures) and thus affects the chances of another member 'bieng taught' various things, including the information change that created the social structure in it of itself. (And importantly, very many similar ones)

Another note: This is a highly, highly simplified version.

[greyl]

82. You didn't explain how math, physics, and chemistry lead to ethics at all.

In fact, they don't. Ethics and morality led to mathematics, physics, and chemistry.

[Random_Australian]

111. No, I didn't really. You're quite right.

The main reason for that is that english is not exactly a good medium for talking over that stuff.

However, I did put forward reasons as to why it was subject to that change.

However, your last statement seems very odd to me.

I'm talking about what humans think, specifically what they think is ethical and how that relates to various chances of bieng happy.

You seem to be saying that what humans think led to, say, the big bang, the formation of stars, et cetera, which would be odd enough that I do believe we have a breakdown in communication. Hmmmm.

[greyl]

117. Very cool, thanks. I always appreciate your unique take on things. :)

But still, mathematics, physics, and chemistry are products of a sense-making pattern of value.

[Random_Australian]

118. I say that physics, mathematics, and chemistry

are independent of us, and that it is merely our description of them that is part of a sense-making pattern of value.

I also say that our descriptions are good enough such that what they say about our sense-making pattern of value is going to be accurate, or at least as accurate as they are in describing the real world.

For instance, gravity may be represented by our models that are part of our want to make sense of the world, but as long as those models are accurate we can describe the motions of the planets, whether or not they are in reality following some other order, or are in fact completely independent events.

What say you?

[Silent3]

113. Are the ethics of which you speak proscriptive, or merely descriptive?

What I think scares a lot of people about atheism is that they can't see where the ought comes from -- here's what you ought to do, here's what you ought not do.

I simply accept that there is no ultimate, inescapable ought that can be found -- and that the religiously inclined are simply fooling themselves if they think they've found undeniable sources of ought.

[westerebus]

41. A few.

Slavoj Zizek, Alain Joxe, Giorgio Agamben, Felix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze are the most recent I've read.

[Exiled in America]

45. Paul Tillich

[greyl]

49. Robert Pirsig and Daniel Quinn.

In his follow-up to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Lila, Pirsig tries to unite science and ethics by scientifically laying out an evolutionary morality on top of the assertion that reality itself is essentially value and morality.

What the evolutionary structure of the Metaphysics of Quality shows is that there is not just one moral system. There are many. In the Metaphysics of Quality there's the morality called "the laws of nature", by which inorganic patterns triumph over chaos; there is a morality called the "law of the jungle" where biology triumphs over the inorganic forces of starvation and death; there's a morality where social patterns triumph over biology, "the law"; and there is an intellectual morality, which is still struggling in its attempts to control society. Each of these sets of moral codes is no more related to the other than novels are to flip-flops.

What is today conventionally called "morality" covers only one of these sets of moral codes, the social-biological code. in a subject-object metaphysics this single social-biological code is considered to be a minor, "subjective," physically nonexistent part of the universe. But in the Metaphysics of Quality all these sets of morals, plus another Dynamic morality, are not only real, they are the whole thing."
Robert Pirsig - Lila

In the following few paragraphs he goes on to apply this to the situation of a doctor killing a germ, and makes the case that it is absolutely scientifically moral for a doctor to favor the life of her patient over the life of a germ. In the same manner, he "proves" that it's immoral for a society to enact the death penalty. And a bunch of other stuff. Fwiw, he's one of the very few writers out there who uses the terms metaphysics properly, unlike new-agers who keep buying the same self-help book over and over again.

Quinn's work centers on the question "How should we live?" and takes a pragmatic approach careful to adhere to scientifically verifiable evidence of what actually works in the community of life which is commonly in opposition to revealed wisdom from religion, prophets, seers, mystics etc., about what is right or wrong. I'm most endeared to Quinn because he exposes and destroys myths of our culture that even the most logical and analytical thinkers among us have unwittingly accepted without question. If you suspect that our now globalized culture threatens to cause the extinction of the human race in addition to thousands of other species and prefer authentic hope to false hope, start with Quinn's Ishmael.

We've got to find our way back into the community. We've got to stop living like outlaws. When we begin to do that--when we begin to acknowledge that the world needs us and that we belong to it, not it to us--I think our feelings of desperate loneliness and neediness will begin to evaporate, all by themselves.

Daniel Quinn - Providence

[Evoman]

53. Daniel Quinn

Daniel "We need to stop feeding the poor" Quinn? Its not that I don't agree with the fact that feeding the poor, and creating a problem with population is a terrible long term solution. I just think its easy arguing the point when your not one of the people thats starving.

[greyl]

57. That's a pathetic reply.

Maybe if you had respect for the basics of philosophy, you wouldn't be so errantly self-assured when speaking from ignorance. I thought you knew what a straw argument was, and I'm a little surprised that you've offered up such a pussified reply.
If you want to weaken the work of Quinn based on the assertion that he's making an easy argument, you should first know what arguments he actually makes instead of throwing up a strawman. After you've done that, explain how asserting that an argument is easy for someone to make shows weakness in the argument.

[Meshuga]

59. Greyl

I have never read Anthony Quinn's books but I have read about him, read interviews, short articles, etc. With all that being said, and admitting my own ignorance about his argument, I would like to know the true argument he was trying to make with this "We need to stop feeding the poor..." business (which I assume is paraphrasing whatever he said and it is not a direct quote).

Thanks!

[greyl]

63. Evoman didn't paraphrase D. Quinn, he made a ridiculous mischaracterization.

This link gives a brief explanation.

[Meshuga]

66. Thanks for the link! n/t

[cosmik debris]

67. Some people don't deserve to live

Because they were born in a geographic location with poor "carrying capacity". That is certainly a strange ethical argument, but what impresses me most about it is the similarity to "Social Darwinism" and eugenics.

[Evoman]

69. What? You don't agree with him?

Are you some sort of bleeding heart? What are YOUR long term ideas, Mr. Ethical Superiority?

[cosmik debris]

71. I'm still undecided

But I applied his standard to New York City which has a carrying capacity near zero because very little of its land is arable.

So by that standard all the people in NYC should be left to die. Maybe we should give that a chance?

[Evoman]

75. New York is a cesspit of sin and corruption.

I say cut off food support to New York. Let them eat their newspapers and pornography

[greyl]

77. You can't apply a standard that you're ignorant of, cosmik debris.

Unfortunately, I suspect Evoman's initial misleading framing of the issue was on your mind when you checked out the link. Properly discussing this issue requires a certain amount of backstory and awareness of basic and constant laws of ecology to which humans aren't immune.

Rather than tell you what to think, I'll simply ask you to think.
•How many people in New York City will starve to death this year?
•Is NYC a closed ecological system?
•Can NYC really be described as "an area" when speaking of carrying capacity, or should we notice that like every city in the USA, it receives food that was produced somewhere else via totalitarian agriculture?
•Is NYC and its support systems a model of sustainable human living that deserves to be exported to the so-called third world?
•How many people have to work to put one can of green beans on a supermarket shelf?
•How many species does our culture's current short-sighted method of food production require to become extinct every day?
•How many human societies(let alone non-human) depend on the rain forest in order to live?
•How much of the rain forest is annually destroyed in order to support the expansion of our particular culture?
•Why has the once lush green landscape surrounding the pyramids (the crescent formerly known as fertile) become a desert with extremely low natural capacity to provide food?

•Is our culture sustainable?
•Do you believe, like religious fundamentalists, that humans are on some separate and superior level of existence to every other species on the planet which endows us with the right to turn all of the biomass of Earth into products for human consumption, damn the consequences?
•Using our culture's current approach, is there any evidence whatsoever that the race between food production and population growth can be won? Did it work last year, or the year before that, or the year before that,...?

[greyl]

76. I don't think you could be more wrong.

Let me put it to you this way: Is there evidence that the manner in which the so-called first world is currently "aiding" the so-called third world contributes to a reduction in the number of starving people in the third world?

edit: to frame it as an ethical question, which is better?: Increasing the number of starving people every year, or stabilizing/reducing the number of starving people?

[cosmik debris]

78. False Choice

I'm not sure what you think I was wrong about in post #67, but your false choice of stabilizing or increasing the number of starving people in the world is bogus.

Post #67 had a large dose of sarcasm which I thought was self evident. My mistake.

[greyl]

79. It absolutely is not a false choice.

You've already chosen one, but don't realize it. From what you've written so far, it's clear you've chosen "increasing the number of starving people", but you don't want to frame it that way for some reason.

[cosmik debris]

83. You remind my of my study of Malthus

It has been over 4 decades, but I still remember how we laughed at the Malthusian ideas.

I'm sorry you can't see your own logical fallacies. Neither could Malthus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

[greyl]

84. That's probably because you're dealing with a vague apprehension rather than genuine understanding.

Malthus and Quinn tackle different and opposing problems.
Furthermore, the relationship between food production and population growth isn't a primarily logical topic, it's one that should be based on scientific evidence. Maybe you're really saying my argument is counter-intuitive rather than illogical?
Do you have any evidence that increasing the amount of food sent to the so-called third world decreases the number of starving people?

[cosmik debris]

88. That is a self-evident explanation

Each person who gets food is no longer starving. Thus there are fewer starving people.

I can't comprehend how you could argue that giving a person food increases the number of people who are starving. Every person who gets food is De Facto no longer starving. Check your math while you brush up on your logic.

[greyl]

90. Straw argument.

When have I said that giving one person a certain amount of food increases the total number of starving people?

[cosmik debris]

92. You made that up

I didn't say that. I said that I can't comprehend how you could argue that. The math is on my side.

[greyl]

94. Oh right, you can't comprehend how I could argue that because I've never argued that. Uh huh. nt

[cosmik debris]

96. You seem to be contradicting everything I say

So I preempted your argument with the counter argument. It was just my way of pointing out the absurdity of your position.

[Evoman]

60. Ha ha

" After you've done that, explain how asserting that an argument is easy for someone to make shows weakness in the argument."

Like I said, I don't disagree with what Quinn says. Not really. The ease of the argument has nothing to do with its strength or weakness. Since I am not in a position to suffer a great deal if we cut off aid, then its easy for me to agree with him.


"maybe if you had respect for the basics of philosophy, you wouldn't be so errantly self-assured when speaking from ignorance"

Well, maybe you could explain his argument for me. I did read Ishmael (and one of the sequels...I'm thinking it was called Story B or something like that, I can't remember..its been a little while). Maybe I misunderstood the story.

"I thought you knew what a straw argument was, and I'm a little surprised that you've offered up such a pussified reply."

Can you explain what my strawman is?

[greyl]

61. Your strawman is falsely attributing a quote to D. Quinn, thereby mischaracterizing him.

I'm not sure what to call it when someone makes a straw argument but in the next sentence agrees with it.

It's like someone saying Dennis Kucinich wants all traffic cops to arm themselves with only water balloons, and that it's a good idea.

Maybe we should call it a straw woman?

[Evoman]

62. So Quinn does not, in fact, make the argument that we should not give Aid

to the poor in developing countries? You are correct in saying that the quote is NOT from Quinn, and I freely admit it. But how exactly am I mischaracterizing him, when he does, in fact, argue that we need to stop giving aid to poor people? And mayhaps you could give me a non-snarky reply while your at it....if I'm misunderstanding something, then correct me. I'm not the kind of person who is afraid to accept a good argument or to be shown to be wrong.

P.S. The fact that I am keen to discuss a philosopher after saying I don't like doing it does not escape me.

[greyl]

64. No, he doesn't.

And don't get all bloomy on me, now. Above you said you were looking to spar a little. ;)

[Evoman]

68. ME!!!

Lol...you are sadly mistaken sir. You are being bloomy. You keep dismissing me without offering a counter argument or explanation. I can spar, but I can't spar a paper bag with the words "No, he doesn't" written on it.

[greyl]

70. This should be familiar to you: You made the claim, you back it up.

Your claim is that Quinn says "we should stop feeding the poor"/"we should not give aid to people in developing countries".

[Evoman]

72. Okay. I'll give it a shot.

From your website:

H"ave you not seen the images of the UN workers spreading food among hungry crowds? Have you not seen Sally Struthers asking us to support children that are starving by sending money (food) to them? They cannot produce enough food because they are exceeding their local carrying capacity -- the land cannot support that many animals. It wouldn't matter if they were elephants, rats, beetles, or humans. If we send more resources, we will have more animals. "

They can't produce enough food. Check. The only reason that survive is foreign aid. Check.


"An increase in food production in Nebraska doesn't necessarily produce a population increase in Nebraska. It may produce a population increase somewhere in India or Africa."

"True," I said, and spent a few moments in thought. "Are you suggesting that First World farmers are fueling the Third World population explosion?"

"Ultimately," he said, "who else is there to fuel it?"

We are responsible for their population growth (nonwithstanding Cosmik's point that most cities in first world countries can't support themselves and require farming). So what are we to do?

Since I don't have a copy of Ismael (borrowed it from the library), I went to wikipedia and got this (if you want to contest wiki, fair enough):

Together, Ishmael and his student identify a set of survival strategies which appear to be evolutionarily stable for all species (later dubbed the Law of Limited Competition): In short, "you may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food. In other words, you may compete but you may not wage war."

So what is our part in this? We don't ACTIVELY destroy them or deny them access to food they produce, but I take this to mean that we should not provide them with food. Since, basically, they will starve if we don't, then not providing food would be akin to "letting em starve" wouldn't it?

Again, this is my interpretation of his argument. I already admitted that the quote I used before was not his own words, but doesn't it all boil down to the same thing?

You asked me to back up my claim. And I absolutely agree that it is a legitimate thing to ask me to do. But just as we, for example, ask for evidence of gods existence (since they make the claim), we also share our own explanations for events in an attempt to change minds (alternatives to god, for example). I'm simply asking you to do the same thing: explain the alternative to my argument that Quinn is saying that foreign aid, in the form of food, needs to stop (thereby causing mass starvation).

[cosmik debris]

73. You are arguing around the fallacy.

Post Hoc argument = excess food causes population growth.

Fucking causes population growth. And as any poor person will tell you fucking is NOT dependent on the amount of food in the pantry or the expectation of more food arriving. The relationship between fucking and food is not established. Therefore the argument is false.

[Evoman]

74. True enough but....

Without food, how could there be population growth? Food may not CAUSE population growth, but it is necessary. Realistically, what would happen to very impoverished areas if no aid, or food is given?

Possibilities:

1) Migration to food sources (which will inevitably lead to either genocide or war, if large enough).
2) Mass deaths.
3) Food is grown to subsist the adult population, but child mortality is to high for population growth.

[greyl]

80. Not a fallacy.

Can you cite some scientific research showing that an increase in food production does not lead to an increase in population? Jared Diamond would be very interested in that, I'm sure.

What do you think most caused the population growth rate to soar in the last 10,000 years?
Fucking, or food production?

[cosmik debris]

85. The proof that it is a logical fallacy

You can have increased food production without increased population.

Therefore, increased food production DOES NOT cause increased population.

You need to pay a little more attention to your logic texts and less attention to your ethics texts.

Try these resources.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

[greyl]

86. I don't see it. Unsupported claims still aren't proof, correct?

[cosmik debris]

87. Support for my claim

During the depression milk was in surplus. It did not create population growth because the government paid farmers to dispose of their increased production. Similar programs cause a lot of food to be destroyed to support crop prices.

Increased food production does not cause population growth. You wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you on the ass.

[greyl]

89. Not hardly. You're citing food that was destroyed, not produced as we've been talking about it.

Fallacy of ambiguity or over-broad definition.

Again, this particular area isn't primarily a logical one, it's a scientific evidence one. Got any?

[cosmik debris]

91. Wrong

You argue that increased food production causes increased population. That is clearly an error of cause and effect. You have not established any link between food production and increased population.

I have clearly established that when food crops are destroyed to support prices they can NOT influence population growth. The farmers produced the crops. There was NO result from that production. You deny facts that contradict your preconceived notions.

In order to make a cause and effect argument you MUST show that the effect ALWAYS occurs when ever the cause is present. You failed in that respect.

To disprove a cause and effect argument I only need to show that sometimes the cause is there but the effect is not. I have succeeded in that.

[greyl]

95. Our definition of food production does not include food that doesn't get distributed.

That would be stupid. Moving the goalposts.

[cosmik debris]

98. Setting new conditions to nullify the weakness of your argument.

The was produced. It was available for local consumption without a distribution network. You are grasping at straws.

[greyl]

100. If it was destroyed, it wasn't available for consumption. nt

[cosmik debris]

102. The cows were milked

The crops were grown and harvested. The government had the choice of allowing the sale of them or destroying them. There is no doubt that they could have been sold and consumed locally. (In fact some of them were sold illegally or "gleaned" from the dumps where the farmers disposed of them.)

But your argument did not say that increased food distribution caused increased population. Your argument was that increased production caused increased population. You have changed the terms of the argument because your initial argument was absurd and incredibly weak.

[Evoman]

103. .................

"Can you cite some scientific research showing that an increase in food production does not lead to an increase in population?"

:evilgrin:

[greyl]

105. Do you seriously believe that I was including, for example,

edible material produced and then shot into space?

[cosmik debris]

107. I believe that you have an absurd argument

with no basis in fact. I believe that you are desperately trying to support that argument with logical fallacies, changing definitions, and bad math.

[greyl]

116. "I believe that you are desperately trying to support that argument with logical fallacies,..."

What do you mean by "that argument"?
Please, answer this one, giving brevity its all due respect.

[cosmik debris]

119. Briefly

What's the point. You haven't said anything credible yet. There is no point in continuing until YOU offer support for your position.

[greyl]

81. Thanks for the reply, but please

cite the evidence you have that Quinn suggests that "foreign aid, in the form of food, needs to stop".

Also, the quote from wikipedia is referring the entire community of life, not other other humans. That said, our culture does actively destroy the livelihood of other human cultures. You really don't see that?

[Evoman]

93. Dude, am I missing something?

What alternative is there? If too much food is the problem, and the reason that people in starving nations are reproducing is because we allow them to by selling or donating food, what other stand is there?

IF thats NOT what he saying is the solution, then what could posssibly be the solution from his point of view? Maybe its a lack of imagination on my part, but I don't see what else, apart from stopping food selling/donation (thus allowing people to starve) you can do.

Its like when someone recognizes that "The problem with crime is that there is too many black people"....they don't have to say it, but you assume that they are thinking of a solution that is racist: i.e. killing black people or stopping them from reproducing. IF thats your argument, what is the solution?

[greyl]

97. Yes, you're missing the evidence to support your initial claim. nt

[Evoman]

99. Okay, lets try something different, since your responses are, to put it delicately,

retarded.

You are saying that I am misinterpreting what Daniel Quinn is saying. Fine. IF you could pretty pretty please take the time out of your hectic schedule to tell me what Quinn is REALLY saying.

The problem: Excess food is causing population growth. The food we sell/donate to foreign countries is causing population growth and environmental damage as a result.

The solution: ???

The ramifications of this solution (if any): ???

Please, I am ignorant and wrong. I need your help in analyzing Quinn since I am an uneducated moron.

[greyl]

106. Somebody mentioned "brevity", so I ran with it.

Are you admitting that you can't source your initial claim?

[Meshuga]

110. Regardless...

I was also wondering what would be his solution to this scenario? It is a fair question to ask. Is there a quick answer? Is there a link to a summary anywhere?

[greyl]

124. Given the complexity of the situation, it can't be said that there's a simple solution.

One of the first steps is accurately identifying and getting a handle on the extent of the problems, and I don't think the necessary groundwork has been - or even should be - established in this thread.

However, I think the people of our culture need a new vision of their role on the planet might be the shortest answer that touches the deep heart of "the problem".
Conveniently, there still remain a couple thousand human societies in existence that we can learn from. We can try to objectively compare the results of our singular & relatively embryonic cultural experiment to the results of their thousands, and maybe learn how to give ourselves a piercingly critical review, questioning many of the assumptions that have led us to lead the rest of the world to the precipice of extinction.
If people don't first agree that that last point is accurate, any discussion amongst them about solutions to symptoms of "the problem" will likely be unproductive, as evidenced by the goofily executed tangents in this thread. I'm not sure we began in agreement that our culture is busy making the world uninhabitable to humans and other life forms. It began with a, to put it nicely, misquote of Daniel Quinn. One of the reasons I cited him as having been useful to me on ethical concerns, is that I think he articulates the badness of our culture (what doesn't work), with a solidly objective, evidence based, yet emotionally resonant message. Quinn doesn't prescribe programs, he encourages us to change our complacent minds.

If one is of the mind that the end is near but sweet release unto some timeless divine existence awaits them, they won't care about this topic. If one is of the mind that, yes, our culture is certainly causing grave problems across the entire planet but our culture will certainly iron those problems out, they won't care about this topic. If one is of the mind that we should just learn how to conquer the world even better, they won't care about this topic.

There's a good chance the 2 respected people sparring with me in this thread have at some point pointed out to "believers" that the religion they belong to is most probably a result of the circumstances they were born into rather than a product of rational consideration, but sadly, my atheist brethren sometimes don't realize that they are subject to similar biases and blind spots because of being born into a particular human culture. Renouncing "God" is child's play. Renouncing ones own culture is a bit more difficult.

__________

Our current method of "aiding" the starving millions is ensuring that next year there will be more starving millions. We are perpetuating famine, and I'm not okay with that. I've asked for someone to provide evidence that the number of starving people is reduced every year because of our present approach to the situation, hoping that will encourage them to look into the facts of the matter on their own.
The second shortest stated solution to the problem would be that we need to stop increasing the amount of food we dump into the so-called third world every year. That doesn't mean cutting it off altogether, it means stabilizing it.

[cosmik debris]

126. Show cause and effect

You say: "Our current method of "aiding" the starving millions is ensuring that next year there will be more starving millions. We are perpetuating famine..."

You have speculated about that but I have seen no direct cause and effect relationship established. I think you are blowing smoke.

And just how does this differ from social darwinism? I can't see any substantive difference.

[greyl]

131. I see you haven't offered evidence that our current approach causes a reduction in starvation.

If you care to, take the time to read this page and check out the pertinent links.

[cosmik debris]

133. So I will assume that your argument is bullshit

Since you made the statement about cause and effect and refuse to back it up.

You also refuse to justify your association with social darwinism.

In stead, you try to divert attention to me because your argument is so incredibly weak.

You just keep saying that I can't prove you wrong, so you must be right. Of course that is nonsense, but I guess I shouldn't expect more than that.

[greyl]

137. Read the link I just gave you.

I think I should probably write you off as a lost cause and stop wasting my time.

[cosmik debris]

138. Opinion not fact

Reasoning does not equal research. You can make up stuff all you want, but until you offer some evidence other than the opinions of those who agree with you, I will assume that you are full o' shit.

And the longer you defend social darwinism, the lower my opinion of you will go.

[greyl]

143. You coudn't possibly have read the material provided at that link.

See ya.

[cosmik debris]

145. Cite the research...if you can...but you can't ...end of story.

[greyl]

149. I know for a fact that you didn't read the links at that page.

If you had tried to, you'd know which ones aren't working, notably, the peer reviewed paper.
I'm convinced you don't give a shit.

[cosmik debris]

150. You are right about one thing

I don't care a lot for people who try to justify the deaths of a group of people so that another group of people will not have to be burdened by the less fortunate.

Quinn's position, and apparently yours, is that if we allow a few people to die slow and painful deaths, we survivors will all benefit in the long run. To me that is reprehensible, unjustifiable, and incredibly selfish.

I hold a slightly higher standard.

"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." --John Donne

[Evoman]

114. Of course I can't source it....what I did is defended my interpretation.

Who in their right mind would actually say "LET THE POOR PEOPLE STARVE". I just think thats the implication of his philosophy.

Its reasonable

Foreign aid/excess food causing problem > solution is not doing it anymore > ramification is starving people. Again, I'll repeat that maybe its a failure of my imagination, but I can't imagine what else he could possibly say about this. I don't have a copy of Ishmael, and its been years since I've read it, but this is the impression I got when I did read it.


In the same vein, is it reasonable to believe that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, even though he doesn't explicitly say, "I am a racist"? Or, in another example, is it reasonable to assume that if someone argues "The reason why priests abuse children is because they can't get married", they are saying that we should allow priests to marry (the ramifications of that solution don't seem as dire).

Thats why I'm asking you to help me out and point out what exactly it is he is arguing. I'm not, despite what you may think, afraid to admit that I'm wrong. In fact, if I am wrong, I think it would be quite easy for you to give me another interpretation that would change my mind.

But you won't. I don't know why...are you trying to buy some time :)

[cosmik debris]

121. "Who in their right mind..."

They are not in their right mind (IMO) but that is exactly what the Eugenicist and the Social Darwinists said a few decades ago. This "philosopher" is delicately dancing around Social Darwinism as if he can repeat its message without bearing the stigma of its title.

The bottom line is that he is pushing the proposition that we could improve the world by letting the less fit* perish of their own accord.

*less fit being defined as those who are unable to get into their car and drive to McDonald's.

[greyl]

128. How many people have you "let" starve today?

I'm sure that strikes you as an absurd question, but give it a minute to sink in without assuming what my point in asking it might be.
Then answer it.

[cosmik debris]

130. All of them.

Why did you change the subject to make this about ME? Are you running out of other diversions?

[greyl]

132. You aren't displaying sufficient patience for this discussion.

Was your answer serious?

[cosmik debris]

135. Yes it was serious

But it is not about me. You just can't justify your own weak position so you try to divert attention away from the nonsense Mr. quinn spouts onto the critics of his position. Blame the critics...Brilliant!

[Silent3]

120. Oh, please.

Evoman is making a pretty damned obvious conclusion from what Quinn is saying. Instead of peevishly demanding that you need more "proof", why don't just explain what's wrong with Evoman's conclusion instead?

If a person X claims A and B, and it's hard not to see how the combination of A and B can't help but lead to C, you don't need a direct quote from X proclaiming C, flat out, to say with a high degree of certainty that X supports C, or is doing the moral equivalent of supporting C.

Of course, if C is an unsavory-sound conclusion, human nature being what it is, X, and supporters of X, might happily play the "plausible deniability" game, ducking and weaving around the issue on the basis of carefully avoiding ever being caught directly stating C.

If A and B really don't have to lead to C, it's certainly very suspicious when one avoids simply coming out a saying why.

[greyl]

122. Occasionally, we'll see astrologers citing a particular quote from Einstein

that Einstein never made. In my opinion, the first order of business is getting the astrologer to realize that the quote can't be found in any of Einstein's works. Trying to explain to them what Einstein was really talking about in his entire body of work is secondary.

[cosmik debris]

123. cop out

I looks to me as if you can't "just explain what's wrong with Evoman's conclusion instead?"

And I will continue to believe that until you show evidence to the contrary.

[greyl]

125. Double standard. Please read for comprehension.

It's nobody's primary responsibility to educate that astrologer on the meaning of the entire body of Einstein's works. It's the astrologer's responsibility to admit they tossed out a bogus quote.
Think of the man hours saved.

[cosmik debris]

127. Cop out #2

He admitted that he could not cite the quote, but you won't let that go.

Can you explain what is wrong with Evoman's interpretation of the author you cited? I doubt it.

[greyl]

129. The answer is in this thread.

My request for you to read for comprehension was sincere.

[Silent3]

136. No one goes through this much effort...

...to avoid saying something unless they're being evasive. Surely the burden of repeating something you think has already been said once, but apparently hasn't been recognized as such, is not so great.

You've probably typed 10-20 times as much as you might have otherwise types in attempting avoid saying (perhaps "again" in your viewpoint) something to clear this up and answering the simple questions put to you.

[greyl]

139. If I had it to do over, I'd do it differently.

Yesterday I was rushed and didn't expect it to take so much work on my part to try to get Evoman to make a simple admission, and for Cosmik to offer evidence that our current approach is working. The assumption that our present method is working is what I was hoping they would investigate on their own.

[cosmik debris]

140. I don't recall saying that it WAS working

At least not in an absolute sense. Perhaps I should go on and on for 2 days demanding that you cite that quote for me. :rofl:

The idea that was being contested was that Quinn's way would work better. You still decline to produce evidence to support that.

[Evoman]

144. ......................

"At least not in an absolute sense. Perhaps I should go on and on for 2 days demanding that you cite that quote for me. "

:rofl:

[greyl]

146. You hardly needed to.

When I framed your position as "you prefer to increase the number of starving people" in similar fashion as you're trying to frame me as being for Social Darwinism, how did you respond?

[cosmik debris]

148. Cite the quote, cite the quote, cite the quote

Cite the quote, cite the quote, cite the quote, cite the quote, cite the quote, cite the quote, ad nauseum.

[Silent3]

134. That admission has already been made...

...so please, do continue with the "secondary" stuff.

Just to make sure you can't duck out, I'll say this myself: As far as I know, Daniel Quinn never literally said, in so many words, that aid should be cut off to people in poor countries, and that they should be allowed to starve.

It seems, however, some people have construed his words that way. In terms which recognize that particular take on Quinn's words, can you tell *me* why you view that interpretation as incorrect?

Are you "allowed" to answer the question now, or do you still feel the need to hold back, because that "first order business" simply hasn't been taken care of to your supreme satisfaction yet?

[Evoman]

141. I already tried that....didn't work so well....

"You are saying that I am misinterpreting what Daniel Quinn is saying. Fine. IF you could pretty pretty please take the time out of your hectic schedule to tell me what Quinn is REALLY saying.

The problem: Excess food is causing population growth. The food we sell/donate to foreign countries is causing population growth and environmental damage as a result.

The solution: ???

The ramifications of this solution (if any): ???

Please, I am ignorant and wrong. I need your help in analyzing Quinn since I am an uneducated moron."

[greyl]

142. Quin would say we should stabilize our food production and aid, not cut it off.

He would suggest we stop increasing our food production in tandem with changing our method of food production.
He also strongly suggests that we should respect other human cultures rather than destroying them.
The Social Darwinism bs that has been bandied about in this thread couldn't be farther from the truth.

[Evoman]

147. I'm sorry....what does stabilize mean?

Give them a set amount, then if they have more children and a greater population, we still give them the same amount? What are the implications of this?

"He also strongly suggests that we should respect other human cultures rather than destroying them."

Are there any limites to respecting other cultures?

"The Social Darwinism bs that has been bandied about in this thread couldn't be farther from the truth."

But what about the case of New York or Los Angelas? Would the same thing apply to big cities? It should, shouldn't it? We should have a stable amount of food earmarked for these cities...if the population grows, too bad. Thats where a lot of the social darwinism ideas come in (and I don't know if that a fair assessment..maybe it isn't)...but its easy to argue for stablization (how to do that is another matter), as long as its brown people across the sea.

Of course, if he does make the argument that the same applies to big cities as it does to other nations, that at least he is consistent. Does he live in a big city?

[Evoman]

101. This is the all time best thread hijacking EVER.

Sorry H and E ;)

[cosmik debris]

104. Yeah, me too

But sometimes I just can't help myself.

[kiahzero]

108. And I wasn't even involved this time! (n/t)

[More Than A Feeling]

115. *shrug* That's ok, guys.

You all have your discussion, and people who want to stay on topic can work around you.:)

[westerebus]

109. I'm still waiting

for someone to get the "How to cook a Missionary" book off the shelf to feed the starving populace in the third world. As always, the punditry is pure art. Thanks.

[HamdenRice]

151. Wow, neo-Malthusians like Quinn really are uninformed imbeciles

Reading through this thread, I am struck once again, how some people like Quinn who make pronouncements about agricultural economics, food production and population really haven't a clue about what they are talking about.

The whole premise of the neo-Malthusians, as it relates to developing countries, is that people are starving in certain places because their population has exceeded the carrying capacity of their natural resources.

That is pure unadulterated bullshit.

What country has the largest and densist population? How many people starve there? I hope you answered China. Yet there are relatively few starving people in China.

By contrast, a great deal of hunger exists in Africa. Yet of all the populated continents, Africa has one of the lowest ratios of people to land. Even excluding the Sahara, Africa is by world standards underpopulated. Some of the hungriest parts of Africa, such as Congo, are even comparatively underpopulated by African standards, and some of the countries that are least hungry, such as South Africa and Nigeria, are the most heavily populated.

The cause of hunger in Africa is not that the population has exceeded the land's carrying capacity. It is a web of complex factors including lack of investment in agriculture and infrastructure, egregious pricing policies, dumping of western food on agricultural markets putting indigenous farmers out of business, war and the dumping of small arms onto the African market, small national markets making it difficult to move food to where there are temporary shortages, poor roads and other infrastructure, poor water control infrastructure, and even lack of population.

Among the most important books on the sources of African poverty of the last 30 years have been Illife's "The African Poor," and Hyden's, "Beyond Ujamaa in Tanzania." Both emphasize that one of the biggest hurdles African farmers face is simply recruiting sufficient labor power to produce a surplus for urban markets.

So "letting them starve" because they have "exceeded the carrying capacity" of their natural resources is both evil and stupid.

If you want to learn about the causes of poverty and the path to global poverty reduction, try reading Nobel Prize winning welfare economist, Amartya Sen, rather than a juvenile bullshitter like Quinn. Sen won the prize primarily for his work in analyzing famines as "entitlement failures." In other words, he described the difference between "assets" and "entitlements." In simplist terms, an asset is an actual thing of value or that can produce value like land. An entitlement is one's abilty to command or use an asset.

Sen noted that during the most notorious famines of the last century and a half, such as the Irish potato famine and the Bengal famine, there actually was enough food in the country to feed the hungry. The people, however, did not have the entitlement (in the form of cash wages or savings or other things) to purchase the food. Ireland exported food to England during the potato famine.

During the Somali famine of the early 1990s, the warehouses of Mogadishu were full of food, which was being hoarded by speculators and warlords. Again, it was not a failure of the natural resources to produce, but a failure of the social and economic system to allocate, food to the poor.

Sen is the opposite of a neo-Malthusian and focuses on the need to improve societal allocation, decrease inequality and increase human, social and economic rights in books such as "Development and Freedom" as the means to ending poverty.