Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 10th, 2017, 2:16 am 

If everyone is so concerned with wanting to have freedom, then why do they do things that take away their freedom?

The biggest question is why do people never talk about the problem with human population growth. They will go to great lengths to avoid it. Simply put, human population growth is the main thing that is taking away our freedom of clean quality resources, jobs. Human population growth contributes to more regulations and laws.

Examples:

-Outlawing pro-choice abortion promotes population growth.
-Anything that generates inequalities and poverty also contributes to population growth.
-People also time and again abuse their freedoms which leads to society creating laws to protect citizens from themselves.

Another one that is a little conflicting is building companies, products, and technologies that pollute and disrupt our freedom to health, space, and resources of the common shared planet. This topic is a matter of perspective. Do the products give us freedom or take it away. It goes straight back to population growth however because technology/products takes away our freedom when too many people are using it/demanding them.

The answer to this question I think lies in the failure of humanity to acknowledge the problem of population growth when it comes to freedom.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Braininvat on June 10th, 2017, 9:55 am 

Most people aren't good at seeing their personal choices in the context of a regional (let alone global) ecosystem, and tend to see population growth as quite abstract. For some, having the choice of a large family is perceived as a kind of freedom. They aren't necessarily going to connect that choice to wider consequences later. For some women, OTOH, their having more than the replacement number of children (2.2 is the figure I usually see) is due to extreme and oppressive social/religious pressure, and they may be painfully aware of a lack of freedom even if the patriarchs are not. Seems like the conversation about family size only happens in the affluent and educated classes, where the demographic shift has happened and children are no longer seen as economic security in old age. And where men no longer prevail with the idiotic notion that more children is a badge of virility and success. The movement for reproductive freedom is really a movement for social justice for women. It's about a woman knowing she is her own person with her own life goals and not a breeding machine.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5946
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Serpent on June 10th, 2017, 10:39 am 

As one who has been arguing this problem [overpopulation] for decades, I can make a couple of relevant observations.
Op-ed - no citations.

Back in the 1970's, for a few years after this http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Illustrations/Limits-to-Growth.pdf, there was a world-wide effort to mitigate population growth. China came out with the only state-enforced policy, but India and several other countries tried various stick/carrot approaches to voluntary birth-control. The back-lash was spectacular. Church leaders went bombastic. Human rights advocates condemned as racist any attempt to curtail reproduction in the poorest countries, with non-white populations. In the west, the birth-rate was already declining rapidly (from a mad post-war baby boom) and people took advantage of medical science to control their own fertility - and demanded increasing freedom to do so. Legislators, caught between powerful religion and powerful voters, slowly, slowly, relaxed the puritanical laws on sexual conduct and information.
Meanwhile, in the "developing" world, the only effective measures against uncontrolled, unsustainable population growth were a rise in the standard of living and the empowerment of women. Nothing else works.
And the elites of the world (economic, political, military and religious) were not about to let either of those factors prevail under their separate or mutual jurisdictions. They were not, by a very long chalk, ready to stop sucking resources and cheap labour [and let's not even mention sexual access/ excess] out of the colonies.

So we were at an impasse for 30-odd years, until the statistics came out as how white populations were declining and non-white (described variously) populations were increasing. [No guff! If you won't let 'em have any of the wealth, tech or self-determination....] Western supremacists* freaked out. Whatever ignorant armies of fundamentalists, traditionalists, neurotics and control-freaks they could recruit were deployed. Whatever pressure they were able to bring on their governments against women's rights, especially regarding abortion and employment equality, they did.
Of course, the people most affected by abolishing sex education and birth control are the non-white poor, who already have the highest unemployment and imprisonment rates. It doesn't matter to the elite: their interest is served by maintaining a large underclass of surplus people who are too busy fighting among themselves over the scraps to unite and demand their rightful place at the table.

*I know there is no such entity. I've just used it a collective term for a loose, intermittent alliance of conservative elements.

As for Freedom, that's a slogan, like Peace and Brotherhood.
The more you hear it, the less of it there is.
(More on this later, maybe.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 10th, 2017, 12:55 pm 

It's much more complicated in nations outside of the USA or perhaps Europe and other "developed" nations but the confusing thing is what is going on in present day USA. One would think since we are "developed," we should be educated enough to understand this so the people running for office or leaders are either:

1. Not as developed or smart as they think they are.
or
2. Conflicted in going against their own convictions. They themselves want to have freedom to have as many children as they want so they don't want to restrict that freedom for others. OR conflicted in their conviction that whites are some sort of god that need to reproduce and every "white" life is precious. Which leads to...
2a. Another possibility is they think that whites need to populate as much as possible to out populate the other colors of humans.

Now #2 is not likely because there isn't much evidence from my observations that people who hold this belief care about other "races" of the world. Like they aren't seeing the bigger picture of treat others (including other races) as you would want to be treated with freedom to reproduce. I mean it is possible that some racists are being hypocrites here while others actually do think that humanity despite the color of their skin is high and mighty above other creatures and every life should be saved despite the consequences.

and #2a is a race to the bottom and they aren't educated enough to see that helping others from reproducing will actually help themselves.

So #2 leaves us with these people being egotistical about humanity being special and godlike so however many humans have offspring doesn't matter to the health of our planet and we should all suffer because of our ego.

and leaves us with us being not as smart or developed as we think we are. Many would rather be isolationists building walls to keep out masses of immigrants than allow them the reproductive freedom and promote birth control.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Serpent on June 10th, 2017, 1:39 pm 

Nobody's as smart as they think they are, including me, and I'm pretty damn smart.
Everybody's conflicted, too - in their emotions vs reason, in their convictions vs career, in their prejudices, voiced, secret and unconscious. Politicians are also constantly buffeted between interest blocs and voter perception. Neither are they, as a rule, better informed than the general public: they're just as prone to fallacy, propaganda and misdirection.
So, there is not going to be a coherent understanding of the present situation, nor a rational vision of the future in any politically constituted body of decision-makers. They'll always bend to the prevailing force, whether that's campaign contributors, loud pulpits or popular sentiment. The only hope for good legislation is a strong popular sentiment. That means overcoming the well-orchestrated, well-funded, extremely pervasive right-wing rhetoric. And that is difficult!

As for 'Developed', I'll put it in the same slogan bag with those other unexamined terms.
We hear or see the word; indeed, we are so accustomed to the word that we hardly register it anymore, and we each have some nebulous flock of impressions surrounding the word as it enters our awareness. But those impressions take flight before the word even lands on our conscious thought-process. Try thinking about it. What does "development" mean, as applied to - a person - an industry - an institution - a nation?
The term "developing nations" was coined to sound better than "backward countries", but is equally undefined, and usually goes unscrutinized.

(As for whites out-reproducing non-whites - that boat never got built, let alone set sail.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby mitchellmckain on June 10th, 2017, 3:11 pm 

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 1:16 am wrote:If everyone is so concerned with wanting to have freedom, then why do they do things that take away their freedom?

Yes, indeed. People are not rational. They do what they know will destroy them -- take away their liberties, opportunities, potentiality, freedom of will, health, and even their very lives.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 1:16 am wrote:The biggest question is why do people never talk about the problem with human population growth. They will go to great lengths to avoid it. Simply put, human population growth is the main thing that is taking away our freedom of clean quality resources, jobs. Human population growth contributes to more regulations and laws.

I think it is a bit bizarre to talk of human population growth as a limiter of freedom when the fact is that doing something about it is what requires a limitation on human freedom. Freedom is NOT about having and getting what you want. Nor is it about access to help and resources. Freedom is about the liberty to do what you want according to your own hard work and ingenuity without arbitrary and prejudicial obstructions by other people. Freedom is not a liberty from the problems and challenges which face everybody but a liberty from unfair interference of others. Ok this is not such a sharp black and white difference but it is a difference nonetheless.

Population growth is a threat to the environment and to the future not to personal freedom.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 1:16 am wrote:Examples:

-Outlawing pro-choice abortion promotes population growth.
-Anything that generates inequalities and poverty also contributes to population growth.
-People also time and again abuse their freedoms which leads to society creating laws to protect citizens from themselves.

Abortion is not about population growth but about the ability of women to reclaim their lives in a world where rape is a rather sad fact of life. Abortion frankly has an insignificant impact on population growth. If this were not the case, then it would give legitimacy to the claim of rank immorality in those who turn to abortion as nothing more than a means of birth control. This is NOT a good reason for abortion when other means of birth control are available.

Yes, as irrational as it may seem, poverty does indeed have a significant impact on population growth. The reason seems to be that when other sources of wealth are scarce and hard to come by, people turn to progeny as the one type of wealth which they can acquire (not to mention turning to sex as the one type of entertainment which they can have without cost).
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 10th, 2017, 3:24 pm 

mitchellmckain » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:11 am wrote:I think it is a bit bizarre to talk of human population growth as a limiter of freedom when the fact is that doing something about it is what requires a limitation on human freedom. Freedom is NOT about having and getting what you want. Nor is it about access to help and resources. Freedom is about the liberty to do what you want according to your own hard work and ingenuity without arbitrary and prejudicial obstructions by other people. Freedom is not a liberty from the problems and challenges which face everybody but a liberty from unfair interference of others. Ok this is not such a sharp black and white difference but it is a difference nonetheless.



Actually I find what you said bizarre. Freedom is having choice and access to help and resources. Please explain what you meant about doing something about it limiting freedom. If you meant that limiting the ability of people to reproduce then you are right but that's not what I am talking about.


Population growth is a threat to the environment and to the future not to personal freedom.


A threat to the environment and future IS a threat to personal freedom in the present by not having access to clean water, health, and over our lifetime. Think of it this way.
Before: We had the freedom to drink clean water, eat healthy food, and live a long time.
After: We don't have the freedom to access these resources that give us a normal lifespan.
Before: We could get a decent night's sleep without having a car alarm go off outside our bedroom (environmental noise pollution)
After: We don't have the freedom to sleep anymore because so many people live around us making noise.
Before population growth: we had the freedom to drive 100mph around town.
After population growth: we don't have the freedom to drive because we have speed limits after so many people abused their freedom to drive fast and causing injury.

Greater population, means more laws and restrictions on personal freedom due to environmental pollution.

Abortion frankly has an insignificant impact on population growth.


Disagree that it has a significant enough impact when that choice is taken away. It has hidden social/cultural implications as well.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby mitchellmckain on June 10th, 2017, 4:16 pm 

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:A threat to the environment and future IS a threat to personal freedom in the present by not having access to clean water, health, and over our lifetime.

Incorrect. Freedom is not the about availability of such things. It is an entirely different issue.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:Think of it this way.

I refuse it think in such an irrational manner. It is logically inconsistent to make freedom include things which require the service of others. Follow such absurd reasoning and people will lead to the enslavement of others in order to provide all the things their "freedom" requires. It is frankly the thinking of a spoiled generation. The universe DOES NOT owe you a living and entertainment. In a world devoid of all such things your freedom remains to build and create whatever you can.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:Before: We had the freedom to drink clean water, eat healthy food, and live a long time.
After: We don't have the freedom to access these resources that give us a normal lifespan.

Incorrect.

Before these things were available and after they were not available but we still have the same freedoms as before. Availability is NOT freedom. Freedom is NOT a right to have what you want or need! I absolutely refute, deny and will even fight to death against the tyranny of a spoiled rotten generation that insists their "freedom" means I have to provide such things for them! The whole lot them can take their delusions of entitlement and drop dead! The world is a much much better place without them! I might even be willing to help them into to the grave for the improvement of the world. How is that for a solution to the population problem -- start by eliminating the utterly useless portion of it.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:Before: We could get a decent night's sleep without having a car alarm go off outside our bedroom (environmental noise pollution)
After: We don't have the freedom to sleep anymore because so many people live around us making noise.

Incorrect again. You have the freedom to learn how to live in a world with other people and thus how to sleep with noise or to move elsewhere. People have learned to do this all throughout history and I absolutely deny that your freedom includes a right to provide for your spoiled and selfish demands.


zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:Before population growth: we had the freedom to drive 100mph around town.
After population growth: we don't have the freedom to drive because we have speed limits after so many people abused their freedom to drive fast and causing injury.

Driving is a privilege not a right and when you drive you are agreeing to a considerable number of responsibilities and limitations. So by your own agreement, you give up the right to drink alcohol when driving, you give up the freedom to drive against the requirements of traffic laws, and you give up the freedom to ignore harm and damages caused by your driving. This is a matter of a contract between you and the government which makes laws about speed limits and other things by decisions taking into account any number of practical considerations.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:
Abortion frankly has an insignificant impact on population growth.


Disagree that it has a significant enough impact when that choice is taken away. It has hidden social/cultural implications as well.


I retract. The numbers do not support my claim. In a 1986 study there were 426 abortions for 1000 live births in the US. But that may have been an all time high for this has dropped considerably to 228, 219, 210, 200 in the years 2010-2013. Regardless, even 200 for 1000 live births is still significant and that is in the United States where their is wide use of other methods of birth control. However, I do maintain that as a means of birth control it is abominable. I am a avid supporter of pro-choice for the reason I gave before, but these numbers give me considerable pause lending more credibility to the anti-abortionists.

Population control is a very very poor excuse for something that is only a few short steps away from murder. If that is considered a legitimate justification for abortion then sending people to gas chambers for the same reason is not that far off.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 10th, 2017, 4:56 pm 

mitchellmckain » Sat Jun 10, 2017 12:16 pm wrote:
zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:A threat to the environment and future IS a threat to personal freedom in the present by not having access to clean water, health, and over our lifetime.

Incorrect. Freedom is not the about availability of such things. It is an entirely different issue.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:Think of it this way.

I refuse it think in such an irrational manner. It is logically inconsistent to make freedom include things which require the service of others. Follow such absurd reasoning and people will lead to the enslavement of others in order to provide all the things their "freedom" requires. It is frankly the thinking of a spoiled generation. The universe DOES NOT owe you a living and entertainment. In a world devoid of all such things your freedom remains to build and create whatever you can.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:Before: We had the freedom to drink clean water, eat healthy food, and live a long time.
After: We don't have the freedom to access these resources that give us a normal lifespan.

Incorrect.

Before these things were available and after they were not available but we still have the same freedoms as before. Availability is NOT freedom. Freedom is NOT a right to have what you want or need! I absolutely refute, deny and will even fight to death against the tyranny of a spoiled rotten generation that insists their "freedom" means I have to provide such things for them! The whole lot them can take their delusions of entitlement and drop dead! The world is a much much better place without them! I might even be willing to help them into to the grave for the improvement of the world. How is that for a solution to the population problem -- start by eliminating the utterly useless portion of it.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:Before: We could get a decent night's sleep without having a car alarm go off outside our bedroom (environmental noise pollution)
After: We don't have the freedom to sleep anymore because so many people live around us making noise.

Incorrect again. You have the freedom to learn how to live in a world with other people and thus how to sleep with noise or to move elsewhere. People have learned to do this all throughout history and I absolutely deny that your freedom includes a right to provide for your spoiled and selfish demands.


zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:Before population growth: we had the freedom to drive 100mph around town.
After population growth: we don't have the freedom to drive because we have speed limits after so many people abused their freedom to drive fast and causing injury.

Driving is a privilege not a right and when you drive you are agreeing to a considerable number of responsibilities and limitations. So by your own agreement, you give up the right to drink alcohol when driving, you give up the freedom to drive against the requirements of traffic laws, and you give up the freedom to ignore harm and damages caused by your driving. This is a matter of a contract between you and the government which makes laws about speed limits and other things by decisions taking into account any number of practical considerations.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 2:24 pm wrote:
Abortion frankly has an insignificant impact on population growth.


Disagree that it has a significant enough impact when that choice is taken away. It has hidden social/cultural implications as well.


I retract. The numbers do not support my claim. In a 1986 study there were 426 abortions for 1000 live births in the US. But that may have been an all time high for this has dropped considerably to 228, 219, 210, 200 in the years 2010-2013. Regardless, even 200 for 1000 live births is still significant and that is in the United States where their is wide use of other methods of birth control. However, I do maintain that as a means of birth control it is abominable. I am a avid supporter of pro-choice for the reason I gave before, but these numbers give me considerable pause lending more credibility to the anti-abortionists.

Population control is a very very poor excuse for something that is only a few short steps away from murder. If that is considered a legitimate justification for abortion then sending people to gas chambers for the same reason is not that far off.


What we have here is a complete failure to communicate. I will fight to death for my viewpoint as well but it appears a waste of energy here with such a failure to communicate perspectives. I am not talking about services provided by others. I am talking about services provided by nature. I am not talking about being a spoiled human as you think and expect anyone to entertain me. It seems to me that you simply have preconceived notions about this topic which lead to your perspective on it and I chalk it up to simply a failure to communicate. It is clear to me that you are seeing something different than I am trying to communicate. I will stand by what I said! Larger populations take away our freedoms to resources, health and service. There is a curve however where too little of population is not good for a society and too large population is not good but we are far beyond that. Especially as advancements in technology are created, there is less of a need for people. I am NOT talking about enslaving anyone.

I have worked hard all my live creating and getting what I have. More people move in and take away what I have worked hard for.

Perhaps my original point was just made about how weird humans are destroying their freedoms that they want. lol
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 10th, 2017, 5:03 pm 

PS: How about I move in next door to you and shine flood lights and sirens on your property 24 hours a day. Try living in India. You have the freedom to move. Then as more and more people do that you have nowhere to go. You need to understand limits and that's why population growth is taking away freedom because in the bigger scheme of things these services are being destroyed and we are losing our freedom to life itself.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby mitchellmckain on June 10th, 2017, 6:33 pm 

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 4:03 pm wrote:PS: How about I move in next door to you and shine flood lights and sirens on your property 24 hours a day. Try living in India. You have the freedom to move. Then as more and more people do that you have nowhere to go. You need to understand limits and that's why population growth is taking away freedom because in the bigger scheme of things these services are being destroyed and we are losing our freedom to life itself.


In most places I also have the freedom to appeal to local ordinances and call the police about such disturbances. But in other places this just isn't practical. If you live in Manhattan and complain about noise keeping you awake then your freedom is just as I have said -- you can learn to sleep in those conditions or move to place where the police can respond to noise complaints -- or how about investing in some sound proofing. But I repeat, this is not about freedom but about availability and making this about freedom as if you have some holy right to whatever you want or need isn't rational, reasonable or even mature.

The thing about freedom by free society standards is that your liberties MUST end where another person's begin. This is a big part of the ferocity of my response above. Extend the meaning freedom to such an unreasonable extend to all the things you want and need and you cannot avoid trampling all over the same freedoms of other people. Take medical care for example. The need of some people for medical care is extreme but does "freedom" really mean that the rest of us (doctors and taxpayers) can be enslaved to provide for such needs. I say absolutely NOT, because freedom has NEVER included such things. AND NO this does not mean that I am opposed to Obama-care or even socialized medicine, because I am not. Nevertheless I will not support the outrageous argument that this is a matter of freedom, because it is not!
Last edited by mitchellmckain on June 10th, 2017, 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 10th, 2017, 6:35 pm 

mitchellmckain » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:33 pm wrote:
zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 4:03 pm wrote:PS: How about I move in next door to you and shine flood lights and sirens on your property 24 hours a day. Try living in India. You have the freedom to move. Then as more and more people do that you have nowhere to go. You need to understand limits and that's why population growth is taking away freedom because in the bigger scheme of things these services are being destroyed and we are losing our freedom to life itself.


In most places I also have the freedom to appeal to local ordinances and call the police about such disturbances. But in other places this just isn't practical. If you live in Manhattan and complain about noise keeping you awake then your freedom is just as I have said -- you can learn to sleep in those conditions or move to place where the police can respond to noise complaints -- or how about investing in some sound proofing. But I repeat, this is not about freedom but about availability and making this about freedom as if you have some holy right to whatever you want or need isn't rational, reasonable or even mature.

The thing about freedom by free society standards is that your liberties MUST end where another person's begin. This is a big part of the ferocity of my response above. Extend the meaning freedom to such an unreasonable extend to all the things you want and need and you cannot avoid trampling all over the same freedoms of other people. Take medical care for example. The need of some people for medical care is extreme but does "freedom" really mean that the rest of us (doctors and taxpayers) can be enslaved to provide for such needs. I say absolutely NOT, because freedom has NEVER included such things. AND NO this does not mean that I am opposed to Obama-care or even socialized medicine, because I am not. Nevertheless I will not support the outrageous argument that this is a matter of freedom, because it is not!


You are missing the whole concept of population growth and loss of freedom in a closed system.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby mitchellmckain on June 10th, 2017, 7:10 pm 

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 5:35 pm wrote:
You are missing the whole concept of population growth and loss of freedom in a closed system.


Well... It is likely that high populations will result in a loss of freedoms. With that I agree. It is inevitable. It your particular examples I have disagreed with. A reduction in the availability of things we want and need is NOT a loss of freedom. These are completely different things. Freedom does not mean getting the things you want and need. A free country can all starve to death or die from any number causes -- and none of it has the slightest bit to do with any loss of freedom. BUT, it is quite likely that extreme populations will result in a reduction of personal liberties and at the top of the list is the liberty to have however many children you want.

Population control around the world: (from this site)

China has the policy of families being heavily fined if they have more than one child.

Russia, on the contrary, has the opposite problem and is giving rewards for those who do have children.

India has been paying couples to wait one or two years before having a child.

Romania also has the opposite problem and deal with it by adding additional taxes on people who do not have children.

Uzbekistan has been using forced sterilization on women after they have a second child (without knowledge and consent).

In South Korea and Iran they instituted population control policies that were so successful they are now having the opposite problem.

Pakistan's population growth of 4 children per family is overwhelming the country's infrastructure and resources. But so far they have been completely resistant to dealing with the problem.

Singapore has had the opposite problem, but has tried to deal with it by appealing to everyone's "patriotic duty."
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Serpent on June 10th, 2017, 7:20 pm 

Your two different definitions of freedom are not necessarily at odds. They're just different aspects of freedom that you choose to focus on:
freedom of .... freedom from... freedom to

All freedom is limited by some factors, starting with one's physical ability.
I may not have any legal limitations placed upon my choice to bear live young, but if I have no viable reproductive organs, I still can't do it. However, I should be free to choose not to use such functional reproductive equipment as I do have.
If I've got no legs, being free to walk away is meaningless; I couldn't leave without help or a device. But if I can walk just fine and am not allowed to leave the room, or the village or the country, then my freedom of choice is arbitrarily curtailed by other people.
If I'm not bright enough to pass the bar exam, I'm not free to exercise my choice to become a lawyer, but if I have the brains and am banned from higher education because of my pigmentation or religion, that's somebody else curtailing my freedom of choice.
You can readily spot the difference between natural and unnatural limits to that freedom.

Then there is freedom from want, freedom from danger, freedom for fear.
These freedoms are environmental. We have some slight control over them individually - go into the cave; make a spear, light a fire - but quite a lot more collectively. That brings us to a social contract. All such freedoms are limited by our obligation to other people, who have an obligation to us. The contract is under constant review and revision; it changes according to circumstances and attitudes.

Since all social contract is a comprise between rights and responsibilities, the more people enter into that contract, the more clauses it will have; the more kinds of people, with their own needs and wants, the more complicated it gets. Two or four or twenty people can make a reasonably equitable deal. Five hundred can make an acceptable compact. Seven billion can hardly move or breathe, for stepping on one another's toes, land, sacred grove, daughter's wedding bower, food supply, firewood, gold mine, alligator hatchery, noise tolerance or burial ground.

Freedom to do things within the legal bounds of the contract is negotiable, but the laws are slanted toward power and the accumulation of wealth: the more some people have, the more they can bend the law in their own favour. Limiting others' freedom expands their own; taking the necessities of personal wellness from others increases their own. Slavery is the extreme example, but there are a hundred degrees between parity and bondage.
Much of what we can do, that would not diminish our contribution to the commonweal, nor damage any fellow citizen, nor curtail his ability to exercise his own freedoms and obligations, nevertheless becomes the subject of unnatural social limits.
Some persons or parties are always inventing shalt-nots regarding personal conduct, that have no logical bearing on how well or badly a society functions. A good deal of this arbitrary limit on freedom concerns sexuality and reproduction. (Why people are so worked up over this - for thousands of years!!! they never get bored!!! - is beyond me, but there you go: people are irrational.)
What the elites have to gain by limiting other people's freedom from reproduction: a captive work-force; expendable troops for their armies; swollen ranks of faithful to advance their ideology; a high debt-burden on the plebians; competition at the bottom of societies for scarce resources and opportunities.

Oh yeah, and cheap transplant organs.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 10th, 2017, 7:45 pm 

mitchellmckain » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:33 pm wrote:The thing about freedom by free society standards is that your liberties MUST end where another person's begin.


Exactly. And with more people consuming more resources and putting out more pollution into waterways etc, then our liberties are ending more. More people means our liberties "MUST end" more because there are more people's beginning.

It's not a matter of having the right to those things. Everyone has (or should have) an equal right to the commons (or at least equal right to fight for the commons). It's a matter of less commons for each person when there are more people. And that is how I extend the definition of freedom. It's to our loss of freedom to those commons because there is less of a share to them.

And if you don't believe that everyone should have the equal right to commons like air and water, then you believe in the system of inequalities which has a product of poverty leading to population growth in a vicious cycle. This is a more complicated factor involved though and I would agree that life isn't fair and those who work to build or seek clean resources might deserve them more but it's tricky because like I said, a byproduct is often the very thing we don't want.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 10th, 2017, 9:03 pm 

If you want a medical care example. More people equals less food per person because there is only so much arable land. More people also equals more pollution. Less food and more pollution equals sicker people. More sick people means higher healthcare costs and/or burden on the tax payer. Higher costs is enslaving us to work longer hours or harder. In my definition of freedom that is less freedom to live a happy life. It's also less freedom to life itself because people have less nutrition and shorter life spans. I suppose you could define what I am talking about as a privileged to live? We have less privilege to live? Or if you want to put it another way we are less lucky to be able to live a longer healthier life.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Braininvat on June 11th, 2017, 9:02 am 

Looks like rights and freedoms were confused but then it was resolved. Clean air and water is usually framed as a right, as in "the citizens of a civilized society have a right to take measures to insure a livable environment. " A freedom, otoh, is the unfettered ability to take specific actions, e.g. have 3 babies, purchase a Hummer and drive on the lawn, make a public speech advocating hamster incest, etc. Rights, to be universally implemented, usually require the restriction of certain freedoms. Your right to swing your arms will be restricted in the vicinity of my nose. For 7 billion people, a compex system of laws is needed to sort out rights and freedoms.
User avatar
Braininvat
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5946
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Serpent on June 11th, 2017, 9:58 am 

In the scramble to assert our rights and freedoms, we have fallen into the habit of forgetting or ignoring the other side of the social bargain. Let's not keep leaving out the corresponding obligations and responsibilities.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 11th, 2017, 1:09 pm 

so then is the population growth topic getting ignored because of the confusion between rights and freedoms?

It seems pretty obvious that masses more people reduces what we can do. Unless as I stated we are talking about technology which has a negative/positive side to it. The outcome of technology is usually negative leaning because of how fast it progresses until culture, ethics, understanding, and laws can catch up to it.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby mitchellmckain on June 11th, 2017, 2:23 pm 

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 6:45 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:33 pm wrote:The thing about freedom by free society standards is that your liberties MUST end where another person's begin.


Exactly. And with more people consuming more resources and putting out more pollution into waterways etc, then our liberties are ending more. More people means our liberties "MUST end" more because there are more people's beginning.

Incorrect on two counts.
More people consuming more resources does not mean less for everyone when the resources exceed everyone's needs. So it is not quite that simple. But ultimately yes. There are points where an increase of population will result in less of something for everyone.

But frankly, the consumption of resources is more a problem for the future generations than for those currently alive. This reminds me of the really bad economic analysis in Marx's Communist Manifesto. We see the same stupid idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth to go around. It is nonsense. The truth is that people create wealth largely through pure creativity and imagination. Thus the secret to economic success is unlocking the creative potential of people. This is at heart of why marxist-communism failed -- and why the same tends to happen in other totalitarian regimes.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 6:45 pm wrote:And if you don't believe that everyone should have the equal right to commons like air and water, then you believe in the system of inequalities which has a product of poverty leading to population growth in a vicious cycle. This is a more complicated factor involved though and I would agree that life isn't fair and those who work to build or seek clean resources might deserve them more but it's tricky because like I said, a byproduct is often the very thing we don't want.

When things are freely available to everyone then it can only be taken away by active interference. But when things require work by someone then no, it is not a right. Like I said above, your liberties end when they trample over the liberty of others such as by requiring them to provide for your wants and needs.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 814
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 11th, 2017, 2:35 pm 

mitchellmckain » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:23 am wrote:
zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 6:45 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:33 pm wrote:The thing about freedom by free society standards is that your liberties MUST end where another person's begin.


Exactly. And with more people consuming more resources and putting out more pollution into waterways etc, then our liberties are ending more. More people means our liberties "MUST end" more because there are more people's beginning.

Incorrect on two counts.
More people consuming more resources does not mean less for everyone when the resources exceed everyone's needs. So it is not quite that simple. But ultimately yes. There are points where an increase of population will result in less of something for everyone.

But frankly, the consumption of resources is more a problem for the future generations than for those currently alive. This reminds me of the really bad economic analysis in Marx's Communist Manifesto. We see the same stupid idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth to go around. It is nonsense. The truth is that people create wealth largely through pure creativity and imagination. Thus the secret to economic success is unlocking the creative potential of people. This is at heart of why marxist-communism failed -- and why the same tends to happen in other totalitarian regimes.

zetreque » June 10th, 2017, 6:45 pm wrote:And if you don't believe that everyone should have the equal right to commons like air and water, then you believe in the system of inequalities which has a product of poverty leading to population growth in a vicious cycle. This is a more complicated factor involved though and I would agree that life isn't fair and those who work to build or seek clean resources might deserve them more but it's tricky because like I said, a byproduct is often the very thing we don't want.

When things are freely available to everyone then it can only be taken away by active interference. But when things require work by someone then no, it is not a right. Like I said above, your liberties end when they trample over the liberty of others such as by requiring them to provide for your wants and needs.


I am not incorrect.
You seem to get it but based on what you said here I can only determine that you have a lesser conscious threshold, awareness or understanding of resources and toxicity issues compared to myself. I have spent my life studying the topic both as a personal interest and academically for the past four years. I have seen my home and far beyond it crowded out and deteriorating.

You also have the tendency to highlight humanity in your thinking as if they are all mighty and forgetting the rest of the system.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Serpent on June 11th, 2017, 2:45 pm 

zetreque » June 11th, 2017, 12:09 pm wrote:so then is the population growth topic getting ignored because of the confusion between rights and freedoms?

No, and I didn't think it was ignored. At least, not by me.
There are several ways to lose freedom, depending partly on which kind of freedom we're considering, partly on the size, complexity and structure of the society in which we live. Certainly, a thickly populated city offers fewer opportunities for the individual to exercise natural freedoms than the countryside -
but at the same time, the anonymity of a large, mixed population might make it necessary to relax the social limitations. That is, in order to keep a diverse citizenry pacified, the elite can't impose as many limits on individual freedom. A homogeneous population with a long tradition of obedience is far easier to control, even when it's quite numerous, poor and densely packed.

So, the sheer numbers of people don't have a simple, measurable effect on freedom. However, the degree of individual freedom stipulated by a particular social contract does have a measurable effect on reproductive increase. Population in one country or city is also affected by geography and climate, economic circumstances, political stability, immigration policy... all kinds of things.

Globally, you can't see the direct effect of population growth on individual freedoms, because there is so much variety in the other factors, from one country to the next.

It seems pretty obvious that masses more people reduces what we can do.

Ultimately, yes, I suppose it will be. But for now, it's not obvious to a trapper in the Yukon that an apartment dweller in Tokyo has less freedom than his grandparents did. Then again, it may not even be obvious to the Japanese, either, since many social changes have taken place over two generations, and she's more free than her grandmother was, while he has both fewer rights and obligations than his grandfather did - not so easy a comparison to make!
Unless as I stated we are talking about technology which has a negative/positive side to it. The outcome of technology is usually negative leaning because of how fast it progresses until culture, ethics, understanding, and laws can catch up to it.

In some ways, again, yes. on the other hand, most technologies have the net effect of liberating people - from drudgery, from disease, from ignorance, from biological constraints, sometimes from oppression, and definitely from the need to multiply.

I imagine the optimal limit to human population at something like 2 billion.
But I cannot imagine a pleasant way to achieve that goal.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 11th, 2017, 2:59 pm 

Serpent » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:45 am wrote:In some ways, again, yes. on the other hand, most technologies have the net effect of liberating people - from drudgery, from disease, from ignorance, from biological constraints, sometimes from oppression, and definitely from the need to multiply.


But if we add in some feedback loops then it is negative. Liberating people from disease and drudgery adds to population growth in the short term. In ecology we can graph an explosion of population until some other force drives it back down like another disease or limiting resources. It's a constant push and pull balancing act in ecology and natural systems.

So until those other forces catch up, it's negative at first. There is no black and white in this topic. It's a constant battle. That's one problem. As we are headed upward on population growth, the toxicity level in general is having a negative effect on individual liberties at scales that most people are unaware.

As you just pointed out. One person putting carbon into the jet-stream isn't aware of it's downwind effects halfway around the world. Especially when changes are slower than generations can observe but that's speeding up.

A fisherman fishes in a stream and there are so many salmon that he can almost walk across the river.
To him that's normal.
He has a son that grows up with half as many in the stream due to damming.
To him that's normal.
He has a son who grows up with almost none in the stream due to more damming, agriculture europhication and invasive species.
To him that's normal.
Recently (in the past century+) we have achieved the ability to photograph things and take physical data. That's helping people to see past generations.
With more advancements in technology we are able to get more data both currently and historically through core analysis etc.

This is a case where technology is beneficial which is different from what I was first explaining about technology leading to population growth which leads to damming and eutrophication until until data collection and analysis lets us realize that population growth is harming our support system beyond repair (in our lifetime and many generation's lifetime into the future).
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 11th, 2017, 3:13 pm 

Serpent » Sun Jun 11, 2017 10:45 am wrote:I imagine the optimal limit to human population at something like 2 billion.
But I cannot imagine a pleasant way to achieve that goal.


That sounds like a good number to me. I think it could be a little higher though. One thing is a scary fact. There is no way the Earth can sustain 7 billion + into the next 100-200 years when you look at the shrinking aquifers globally. Not unless fusion energy is achieved and we can build thousands of desalinization plants. This of course leaves out hundreds of other factors. Humanity consistently makes the mistake of thinking we can achieve technology to fix problems before that technology exists. Countless people have made that argument and we are getting further and further behind the curve.

Reference:
GRACE Sees Groundwater Losses Around the World
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu4cBM4m5gU
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Serpent on June 11th, 2017, 4:15 pm 

When you factor in environmental degradation, we're looking at some dire times. But I don't think most people experience that specifically as loss of freedom. They lose their livelihoods, their homes, their crops and livestock, even the very island on which their ancestors lived for millennia. Those losses are registered and recorded. When you consider the long-term and long-range effects of industry, there have been, and will be, plenty of losses - lives by the hundreds of thousands, for a start. And, sure, the illnesses caused by coal dust, asbestos, radiation, etc. limit the freedom of the victims and their families; so, too does mass unemployment when an industry becomes obsolete. But the working classes were never all that free anyway. It's not the loss of freedom they predominantly register.
(By the way, I would distinguish technology from industry, but that's a quibble.)

My main thesis here is: Yes, I agree that human overpopulation is a huge problem; probably one of the three main factors in the possible death of our planet*. However, framing it in terms of individual liberty is a little confusing. There are too many kinds of freedom and too great a disparity of populations, and too many factors affecting each person's concept and experience of freedom.
It's too difficult to superimpose the two ideas.

ETA - the second reason this is a difficult sell: most people are concerned with their own freedom, not other peoples', or spreading it around. The animal rights activist who sets free the bunnies does not enjoy universal approval. The hacker who shares secrets to liberate his counterpart in another country is considered a traitor.
"Your freedom ends where my nose begins." sounds reasonably, until you realize that I'm a legislator, preacher or judge, and my nose is in your bedroom, your classroom, your grocery store, your browser, your bank account, and even your bathroom.
The gradual erosion of freedoms due to environmental factors is hardly noticeable next to the blatant appropriation of personal freedom by the agencies intended to safeguard it.

(*or the collapse of industrial civilization, with mass extinction of humans)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby wolfhnd on June 11th, 2017, 10:47 pm 

Topic reminds of the lyrics "And freedom, oh freedom, well that's just some people talkin'
Your prison is walking through this world all alone" A dimorphic social animal is unavoidably bound to a innate social predilection.

Freedom is a state of mind and for most people it is unobtainable not only because of external forces but as a consequence of biology. You can blame patriarchy, social economic conditions, dominance structures, education or any number of factors beyond the control of the individual. And while the ability of the individual to control how they experience their own reality by consequences of being limited apes it is still the only meaningful way to be "free".

I believe that discussions about freedom are unavoidably tied too freewill. Not only at a psychological level but in the political sphere. How we address the issue of freewill will determine how we address the issue of freedom from over population.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4395
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Serpent on June 11th, 2017, 11:45 pm 

All philosophical considerations aside, it would still be a generally good thing to allow everyone freedom from reproduction, as well as freedom to reproduce. That has not been the standard for most of the people of most of the world through most of the civilized era. Once you have squalling infants scattered about the habitation, your state of mind is no longer your own and free will is a pipe-dream.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby zetreque on June 12th, 2017, 12:02 am 

Serpent » Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:45 pm wrote:All philosophical considerations aside, it would still be a generally good thing to allow everyone freedom from reproduction, as well as freedom to reproduce. That has not been the standard for most of the people of most of the world through most of the civilized era. Once you have squalling infants scattered about the habitation, your state of mind is no longer your own and free will is a pipe-dream.


I still find it strange that people don't associate loss of freedom with population density. Just seems like a bunch of semantics.

Anyway. So back to the OP. Whatever the hell you want to call or define the loss of as there are more people. Why are leaders not doing things to allow for reproductive freedom (both to have and contraception not to have) and education about it if it makes sense to help control population numbers?

One would think that it makes more sense to give out contraceptives to those other countries and races that are immigrating here if we are so afraid of losing jobs to immigrants among many other things we are losing or having more competition to get. Instead they cut budgets for all that stuff.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby Serpent on June 12th, 2017, 8:51 am 

zetreque » June 11th, 2017, 11:02 pm wrote: Why are leaders not doing things to allow for reproductive freedom (both to have and contraception not to have) and education about it if it makes sense to help control population numbers?

Because it's counter to their interests.
"Leaders" are not primarily, or even secondarily, concerned with the long-term welfare of their "own" people, never mind mankind at large, and forget about a planet full of other species.
If we had had leaders who care what happens to us, whether we're free and happy, whether we have a future, we would not be in this mess. If we had any sense, we would choose wise and benevolent leaders - and would not be in this mess.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Hypocrisy in the desire for freedom

Postby wolfhnd on June 12th, 2017, 10:37 am 

One of the most powerful weapons some cultures have is reproduction. Catholicism and Islam come to mind as well as some Hispanic political movements. Multiculturalism is a barrier to a rational discussion or even an honest emotional orientation when discussing population growth. Promoting birth control for third world countries will get you labeled a racist.

The fact that agriculture and sanitation are the major drivers of human population growth seems to get lost in these discussions. Looking at the Americas you can see the huge difference in population density between agricultural and Hunter gather cultures. Humans evolved in a hunter gather environment with natural restraints on population growth. The reproductive strategies that worked well in those environments are at odds with an agricultural environment. Some blame goes to the left leaning environmental movement which seems more interested in establishing an authoritarian international government than realistic evaluation of the human condition. In the absence of the ever demonize western capitalistic industrial complex you only need agriculture and sanitation to destroy the environment through overpopulation. Since the industrial revolution there is even some evidence of reforestation as alternatives to wood fuels were made available. As well as some reduction in slash and burn agriculture related to food transport. Unfortunately technology has not keep up with population growth.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4395
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Next

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests