I think I disagree partly with the second premise where human beings would be able to consume all acquirable resources. That would be true if we only use resources here on earth and even then with newer technologies we can reduce waste, decrease our footprint etc. With the advancement in AI and robotics we could also move to other planets and mine astroids for resources. Even in our own solar system we have enough resources to support billions of people let along the milky way and beyond. As a matter of fact the more "heads" are involved the better technology we could develop to meet that demand. So no I do not think that it would be politically necessary. 

Jason wrote:

I think I disagree partly with the second premise where human beings would be able to consume all acquirable resources.

This is merely a pragmatic objection: the point of 1 in the argument is only to release us from the remaining natural control on our exponential growth (the abstaining we do from having children because of our own need to subsist). Children certainly eat up time, so I don't eliminate all natural limits on our tendency to reproduce, but the desire to not be impoverished seems to me significantly stronger than the desire not to be inconvenienced. Never mind that post-scarcity would free up a lot of labor that might otherwise be interested in caring for children but doesn't due to the low wages involved.

Once I've removed the natural caps on malthusian catastrophe, the problem is a matter of time. If matter and energy are finite and we grow exponentially, we will given time consume it, whatever technological means we devise to stave that off.

This is all I need to, as Etz notes, trigger 3 which triggers the conclusion, which is an ethical dilemma *if* you accept the immorality of birth control.

Last edited by iwpoe (10/07/2016 6:05 pm)

Greg wrote:

-so why not here?

Okay, cards on the table. The real reason I'm pumping this particular intuition is as a focus for my own moral "naturalism":

I think that the human good follows from our natural ends.

I think this is so because in some sense they arise out of a world that is itself geared to the good. I tend to think that our natures will not, ultimately, lead us to have terrible lives in aggrigate because I believe in some version of the old Aristotelain principle "nature does nothing in vain".

The point of the thought is to generate a kind of malthusian tragedy, and malthusian tragedies are particularly interesting to me because they are tragedies of our nature, not our wills. I want to generate a case where the will seemingly has to correct nature not merely direct us in accords with it.

Clearly there are moralisms for which this doesn't work, and there are those who think birth control isn't contrary to our natural ends, but this is still a good hypothetical case for what I'm *trying* to get thought insofar as its concrete and semi-plausible.

Last edited by iwpoe (10/08/2016 1:28 am)

I'm a pessimist about space: energy and distance issues are very difficult. Colonization would be possible, but that's small time and not what we usually think about. Though I'm more optimistic about the use of the ocean for certain resources.

I am inclined of course to think we're in some respect eternal, but I do not know how to square that harmoniously with our bodily existence. You can take a Gnostic approach- this world and body aren't truly for us -but that posits the world as truly absurd, for our incarnation wouldn't be in accordance with our nature.

Last edited by iwpoe (10/10/2016 2:22 pm)