0 Members and 218 Guests are viewing this topic.
You can't produce more resources
And remember that the monetary value of gold and diamond lies entirely in their rarity! If we suddenly doubled the amount of gold in circulation, our banking system would collapse (again).
Assuming that most humans mate for life, the genetic makeup of a second son won't be much different from the first, so the evolution of the species will continue with fewer males, but the survival of the species requires a small surplus of females because not all are fertile. We may need to encourage bigamy.
On the other hand if we reduced the world population to 10 - 20% of its current size our descendants could all enjoy a Western standard of living for as long as the sun shines. That could be achieved in 100 years by encouraging women not to have more than one child, with immediate and continuing benefits to everyone and no hardship.
Apart from gold contacts on circuit boards and reed switches, and platinum crucibles, I've never considered "precious" metals to be of any significance in my life.
That's what China did to it's population,
There seems to be quite an appetite for cars, electrical appliances, and a meat-based diet, in modern China.To live to a Western standard (which doesn't mean adopting any particular choice, but having plenty of choice) requires at least 5 kW of controllable power qand 2500 Cal/day per capita. This cannot be generated sustainably for 6,000,000,000 people but is entirely feasible for one tenth of that number.
It is a currently desirable and achievable condition. We pass this way but once, and I'd hope to leave the world better than when I arrived (there were rockets falling on London, and now they go to Pluto, so we've achieved a little bit). Better to improve the status quo with what we have to hand, than sit and wonder what we might achieve with more.
The minimum condition for a good life is to choose when and how to end it - the ultimate demonstration of autonomy.
A balanced reduction of the human population can remove most of the environmental stresses.
May be these helpHere are lists of universal human needs and values
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.[2] Moral universalism is opposed to moral nihilism and moral relativism. However, not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms, such as that of Isaiah Berlin, may be value pluralist.In addition to the theories of moral realism, moral universalism includes other cognitivist moral theories, such as the subjectivist ideal observer theory and divine command theory, and also the non-cognitivist moral theory of universal prescriptivism.
According to philosophy professor R. W. Hepburn: "To move towards the objectivist pole is to argue that moral judgements can be rationally defensible, true or false, that there are rational procedural tests for identifying morally impermissible actions, or that moral values exist independently of the feeling-states of individuals at particular times."[5]Linguist and political theorist Noam Chomsky states:"if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil."[6]
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act.Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism),[1] but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:[2]Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance.Ethical theories which place strong emphasis on rights and duty, such as the deontological ethics of Immanuel Kant, are often forms of moral absolutism, as are many religious moral codes.
Moral absolutism can be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions also adhere to moral absolutist positions, since their moral system is derived from divine commandments. Therefore, such a moral system is absolute, (usually) perfect and unchanging. Many secular philosophies, borrowing from religion, also take a morally absolutist position, asserting that the absolute laws of morality are inherent in the nature of people, the nature of life in general, or the Universe itself. For example, someone who absolutely believes in non-violence considers it wrong to use violence even in self-defense.Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas never explicitly addresses the Euthyphro dilemma, but draws a distinction between what is good or evil in itself and what is good or evil because of God's commands,[3] with unchangeable moral standards forming the bulk of natural law.[4] Thus he contends that not even God can change the Ten Commandments, adding, however, that God can change what individuals deserve in particular cases, in what might look like special dispensations to murder or steal.
a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature.
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/01/2021 22:47:34The minimum condition for a good life is to choose when and how to end it - the ultimate demonstration of autonomy.Have you decided when and how you will end your life?
Quote from: alancalverd on 24/01/2021 22:47:34A balanced reduction of the human population can remove most of the environmental stresses. What do you propose to achieve that? What should we do to those who don't agree, and make decisions which effectively increase the population?
Yes. January 2029, hypothermia. The date may be delayed if I am in good health and happily married.
For the UK and similar countries: abolish all child and maternity benefits and pay every woman aged 15 to 55 £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant. Allow one exception to the "nonpregnant" rule and another if the child does not survive to age 16. Those who can afford to raise more than one child with no state support can do whatever they wish.