A couple of centuries ago Rev. Malthus, writing on economics, noted that human population would outgrow its food supply. Darwin claims he got his notion of survival of the fittest from Malthus. In the 1960s Paul Erlich revitalized the Malthusian dilemma in his book “The Population Bomb”. The Course in Miracles, a new wave interpretation of Christianity, claims there is no such thing as dearth, that it’s all a matter of distribution of the plentiful bounty our planet offers. Is there a limited supply of resources necessary for human existence? Is there a bountiful supply which is just mismanaged?
I would say the latter - a bountiful supply mismanaged. There really seems no need for poverty. I’m always reminded of the idea that the resources and energy that goes into one “field” of cows could produce three “fields” of grain. There are many non ‘meat vs veg’ ideas ike that too, simply to do with tax reductions and so on.
OBW,
Thanks! I tend to agree. There have been experiments in which vegetables are grown in terrariums without soil. Why the majority of humans are malnourished or starving is a moral blotch on the rest of us.
P.S. I usually don’t like Nagel; but the quote you give might make me rethink him. “What It’s Like To Be A Bat” was, IMO, just plain stupid.
Every year, there are a lot of farmers that are required to destroy their crops because they simply produce too much food. I live in Colorado, where this year a lot of farmers are facing going out of business simply because huge farming industries are putting hundreds of smaller farms out of business.
With today’s farming methods, I’d say it’s very unlikely we’ll ever all starve to death, but I haven’t researched it THAT much.
OrkydOOd,
My cousin has yearly received money from our government not to grow wheat on his farm! Point well made.
Point here–Is Marx’s idea of equal distribution of wealth more moral than the capitalistic, Christain view of being honored by God because of self-aggandizement?
This is a great complementary thread Ierrellus. I hope it has legs. Common sense tells me there is a limit; but I agree this opinion only distracts from the real issue of sharing vs hording. On this one, without any distractive moral considerations or philosophical labels I vote for sharing. We’ve given hording a chance and it seems to have benefited only the horders in the human family. Let’s see what happens when we rid the world of poverty without trying to make everyone rich and ruining our place by our efforts.
According to this book i have here,reasoning from the scriptures,
“The land surface from the earth at present is about 57000000 square miles (147600000 Km). If half of that were set aside for other purposes,there would still be a little less than an acre (c.0.37 ha)per person,which can provide more than enough food. At the root of present food shortages is not any inability of the earth to produce but,rather,political rivalry and commercail greed.”
But this is from the same religion that didn’t allow organ transplants for years, and after thousands had died because of it, started allowing it. Imagine how all those families felt before that “new light” was released.
There isn’t a hint of a doubt that we could support the entire population of the planet with existing agriculture. The problem is in the word “we”. Apples may grow on trees, but they don’t grow on free land. And distribution isn’t free. It’s okay to talk about plenty - it’s quite another to provide it. The first is arithmetic. The second is calculus.
There is a further problem. Any time, and any place where the population is growing, there is an excess of food, necessarily so. This includes some impoverished areas, ironically or not. Feeding the hungry would simply allow for more reproduction., It wouldn’t soleve the problem of poverty, it would exacerbate it. The right to live is not automatically extended to the right to reproduce. But too much of the means to live extends the means to reproduce. Are we to feed the hungry and then require that they do not procreate? Do the not-yet-conceived have the right to life now?
Or is the a matter of choices - choices by the “haves”. of course, it is. But the moral model is not so simple as has been portrayed here. Nor is the economic model - for none has even been attempted. So far.
“Sharing vs hording” is a “loaded” formulation.
“Giving away at great expense vs. not doing so” is more honest. There is no point in asking any moral question if the formulation of the question itself provides the answer.
I don’t know how this squares with any Christian view, and I don’t care.
care to be more specific?
In the Nov. 15 WT of 1967 organ transplants were banned for JWs, whereas they had previously allowed such as late as 1961. They used this in reinforcing their stand on blood, saying that blood is also an organ transplant (see quote below for 1977). Then in 1980 they changed their stance, allowing organ transplants as a matter of individual conscience! Strangely, no mention was made of blood no longer being an organ, so one must assume they are contradicting themselves on this point, as they still refuse blood transfusions. In 1984, they allowed for a bone-marrow transplant… the very source of blood! Still, a blood transfusion would merit disfellowshipping from the organization.
Below are listed some of the “milestones” in the WT’s official statements regarding blood and organ transplants:
1909 Acts 15:135 (including prohibition on blood) not considered as law for Christians. WT REPRINTS 1909, p. 4374.
1945 Denunciation of blood transfusions as pagan and God-dishonoring. WT, July 1, 1945, p. 198201.
1961 Taking a blood transfusion is grounds for disfellowshipping. WT, 1961, p. 63, 64.
Donating organs (eyes) for transplant up to your conscience. WT, 1961, p. 480.
1963 Any fraction of blood considered as a nutrient not to be used in medical treatment. WT, Feb. 15, 1963, p. 124. (See also Awake! of Feb. 22, 1975, p. 30.
Ask your bakers and candy makers if blood is used to make the lecithin used in their products. WT, p. 123
1964 Cosmetics in which cows blood is used are condemned, as well as fertilizers which contained blood. Pet owners told it is wrong to allow transfusions to be given to sick animals. Food with blood in it not to be given to pets. Awake!, May 8, p. 30; WT p. 127, 128.
1967 Organ transplants are a form of cannibalism and to be shunned. WT, Nov. 15, 1967, p. 702704. (compare 1961)
1977 Blood transfusions are organ transplants: " . . . many a person might decline blood simply because it is essentially an organ transplant that at best is only partially compatible with his own blood." Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood, 1977, p. 41. (compare 1961)
1978 Ban on certain blood fractions lifted for hemophiliacs. WT, June 15, 1978, p. 30. (compare 1963)
1980 Organ transplants are a matter of conscience, decided by the individual. WT, March 15, 1980, p. 31. (compare 1967, 1977)
1984 Accepting a bone-marrow transplant is up to your conscience. WT May 15, 1984, p. 31
i know that thier views have not stayed exactly the same on subjects,but this should be moved to a thread in the religion section,out of respect for the original thread.
Undoubtedly there are plenty of resources to feed the current population of the world, were we all so inclined to do so. But that doesn’t mean the whole concept of dearth is invalid- no matter what our technology there will be a tipping point of population where we won’t be able to meet our needs. Will this be 9 billion? 15 billion? 25 billion? Managing population growth will be one of our greatest challenges as a species.
I think China has a good start: limit the number of children that can be had by a family. Or better yet, limit also who can have children to avoid the continuous perpetuation of ignorance.
There’s a danger to that. Consider the US: who would decide who’s children would only perpetuate ignorance? Will you let President Bush decide for you? Are you confortable with Hillary Clinton deciding instead? 
Eugenics is an ugly business. Better we change the culture & educate the world instead of dictate to them. To start at least.
I agree that it is a complex question as to who should have the right to decide who can have children and who cannot, as well as what qualifications would have to be met. Who would be responsible for creating these qualifications? What should they be?
I don’t have answers to those questions, but they are questions that at this point aren’t even being asked. It’d be better to start asking, in my opinion, than to waste time debating whether or not stem cell research should be permitted.
I think there’s a far cry between using stem cell research to try to cure diseases and letting politicians decide who may procreate. The former strikes me as a wonderful idea, that latter an abomination.
Great- they why do we still have politicians? 