Posted by iwpoe  10/05/2016 4:30 pm | #1 |
An argument:
1. If AI and robotics reach a certain level most subsistence work will become unnecessary (post scarcity economy).
2. If 1, human beings will tend to reproduce themselves without natural limit until consuming all acquirable resources.
3. If 2, the only reliable means of controlling the issue is politically enforced mandatory birth control.
∴ There is a circumstance wherein birthcontrol is absolutely politically necessary.
If you deny the conclusion, what alternatives are available?
Last edited by iwpoe (10/05/2016 4:31 pm)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
|
Posted by Jason 10/06/2016 11:30 am | #2 |
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.
|
Posted by Etzelnik 10/06/2016 12:56 pm | #3 |
Jason wrote:
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.
The question isn't so much whether it will become a necessity so much as whether it could become a necessity, and the ethical dilemma that would arise given such an eventuality.
Considering as I view contraception as merely a passive negation of the Divine injunction of פרו ורבו (Be fruitful and multiply) rather than as an evil per se, I believe it would follow that if the positive commandment no longer applied, neither would the prohibition against it's negation.
Noli turbare circulos meos.
|
Posted by iwpoe 10/07/2016 6:01 pm | #4 |
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)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
|
Posted by Greg 10/07/2016 9:56 pm | #5 |
I do not doubt that a possible scenario could be cooked up in which only by using birth control and by politically enforcing the use of birth control can one avoid a catastrophe. So let the catastrophe happen. As a believing in moral absolutes, I'm committed to allowing such catastrophes in other hard cases when they can only be avoided by murder or lying--so why not here?
|
Posted by iwpoe 10/08/2016 12:34 am | #6 |
-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)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
|
Posted by Greg 10/10/2016 12:30 pm | #7 |
... 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.
It is an interesting argument. My faith is that we'll bide time by developing better technologies and colonizing other planets, until history ends. I think man is naturally endless, so I'll also accept that nature cannot always provide for him either.
|
Posted by iwpoe 10/10/2016 2:11 pm | #8 |
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)
Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
|
Posted by Greg 10/11/2016 8:17 am | #9 |
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.
My approach isn't Gnostic. The goods of this world are real, genuine goods, and they are so because of what our nature is, but none of them are and no combination of them them could be man's final end. As it happens, moreover, lots of genuine goods are occasions of evils: for instance, there are risks of sexual excess even in marriage, and the pursuit of truth in philosophy can easily be subverted by the desire to appear, rather than be, correct.
