Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future and Exponential growth

Burgy said: On the second point, we might not consider it "intolerable" if
the clear alternative is the collapse of civilization.

I respond: Maybe, but then you have to ask what you mean by
"civilization." In my view, "civilization" by definition includes certain
basic freedoms. We might view these basic freedoms as concentric circles.
In times of crisis or war, we may tolerate some impingement on the outer
circles in order to preserve the core circles, with the clear expectation
and goal that the outer circles also will become open again within a
reasonably short time after the crisis resolves. An example here might be
the rationing of rubber, metals, luxury goods and even food during the world
wars. If you are going to impinge on circles closer to the core, however,
at some point the impingement itself destroys civilization. The "cure" can
be as bad as or worse than the disease. I'd suggest that the freedom to
procreate within families is close enough to the core that it is close to
the heart of what "civilization" itself means. And given that population
control almost always
includes forced abortions, which implicate the sanctity of life, I think
governmental population control is itself very close to a collapse of
civilization. In my mind, this is pretty close to a point where we draw a
line in the sand and live or die fighting.

I also think it's well to remember how "imminent collapse of civilization"
arguments have been employed with regard to impingements on civil liberties
in the past. From Japanese internment camps during WWII to the torture
chambers of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay today, this sort of rhetoric has
been used to justify evils a free civilization shouldn't tolerate.

On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 5:23 PM, j burg <hossradbourne@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/24/08, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The U.N. predicts that world population will increase from 6 to 9 billion
> > over the next 50 years
> > (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2007/pop952.doc.htm).
>
> . The alternative
> > of governmental population control requires the sort of surrender of
> > fundamental freedoms that, IMHO, we should consider intolerable.
>
> FWIW, I am highly skeptical of that UN projection.
>
> On the second point, we might not consider it "intolerable" if the
> clear alternative is the collapse of civilization. I am not arguing
> that this is the case -- only that "intolerability" is a measure with
> a long string of values.
>
> I have seen it argued, for instance, that the carrying capacity of the
> earth at our current technology level in terms of human beings is not
> only finite but perhaps as low as a few hundred million.
>
> What if this were so?
>
> Burgy
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.