The conventional wisdom is that the earth is overpopulated. We also seem to agree that children and infants (moreso even than other people) deserve special protection by the law. We seem to have the paradoxical situation of holding that all human life is inherently valuable and that we would be better off with less of it (i.e. it has negative incremental value).
Similarly, human exploitation of the earth (which even the greenest of us does, merely to varying degrees) is blamed (typically rightly so) for all manner of environmental ills, implying earth would be better off without us. The reasoning given for averting many of the more serious consequences of environmental exploitation tends to be based on adverse affects on the earth's ability to support human civilization (e.g., sea-level rise is bad because it floods out coastal cities).
Is human life inherently valuable (if no, this may call for a second look at some of our thinking on homicide, the death penalty, euthanasia, etc)?
Are new lives an exception, or are they also valuable?
Is it objectively bad to make our planet less hospitable to H. sapiens?
What is the optimal total human population and why?
Similarly, human exploitation of the earth (which even the greenest of us does, merely to varying degrees) is blamed (typically rightly so) for all manner of environmental ills, implying earth would be better off without us. The reasoning given for averting many of the more serious consequences of environmental exploitation tends to be based on adverse affects on the earth's ability to support human civilization (e.g., sea-level rise is bad because it floods out coastal cities).
Is human life inherently valuable (if no, this may call for a second look at some of our thinking on homicide, the death penalty, euthanasia, etc)?
Are new lives an exception, or are they also valuable?
Is it objectively bad to make our planet less hospitable to H. sapiens?
What is the optimal total human population and why?
