X-Message-Number: 15216 Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 13:16:14 -0800 From: Lee Corbin <> Subject: The World's "Excess" People Mike Perry wrote >>But people, especially at this stage in history, >>should not feel guilty if their focus is not on >>making more people but doing what will benefit >>those that others have made. which Phil Rhodes endorsed. I too agree with what Mike wrote; feeling guilty is in so many cases like this is pointless. But let me take the opportunity to further explain my claim that it's untrue in at least two ways that the world has too many people. In the first place, there is simply a technical disagreement about the world's current capacity. Ray Bradbury once calculated that California could feed the United States, and that the United States could feed the world. If this was once true, say a decade or two ago, then perhaps it's not true any longer. Nonetheless, it is certain that in many parts of the world, the latest agricultural techniques are not being utilized. Moreover, in many of the world's most agriculturally advanced regions, much land could be used far more productively than it is presently being used (in terms of calorie production). Probably in our posts we should all agree that this is technically in dispute; still, I would like to hear persuasive arguments that hunger and starvation around the world are not due more to politics and distribution, than to capacity. What the world really suffers from, I think, is an unequal distribution of capitalism. Areas of the world such as Africa simply do not have in place the kinds of economic infrastructure that is needed. There were just too many experiments in socialism, and also too few decades (or centuries) to properly develop the right kinds of markets. But in this post I wish to comment on the moral desirability of having fewer people. (The words almost stick in my throat.) It's axiomatic that the world cannot have fewer people without there being fewer particular people. So let us imagine an alternate world in which some small region of Africa or India (the usual target) which, while heavily populated in our world, happens to be vacant of people in this alternate world. One may imagine that centuries ago, some disease or something prevented the births of many people in that region, the demographic effects of which, say, are still felt. Now some will say that this is good, because then the food that could be grown here could be used to make everyone else less hungry. For reasons given above, I really doubt it. But even if so, let's concentrate on the reality that this implies. (I think that academic discussions are frequently impacted by people not having the imagination to really foresee the consequences of their beliefs. It's for this reason that I am writing.) If we closely examine this region, we may see several thousand families. Let us look even closer, and come to understand the reality of the daily life that actually goes on there. Suppose in fact that we become very familiar with the particular people. We understand their joys and laughter, the jokes, the celebrations, and the rituals. To be fair, we also come to understand all of the tears and resentments---all the same things that of course animate our own lives. Now having gotten very close---that is, very close to the truth of the situation, let us now look back at the world where these people did not exist. Look closely at the barren fields. Hear only in your memory the people's laughter and see only in your memory the smiles on their faces and the children playing. And remember: you now know all of them by name, and understood as only God really can, their individual lives. Now, you cannot possibly tell me that the world is a better place where those lives are absent! The conclusion is even stronger: even if people are only half-fed, you simply cannot deny the richness and meaningfulness of their lives. If you don't believe me, please, please read Dominique LaPierre's "The City of Joy". And so it follows that even if people had to be less materialistically well-off than the people who are reading this are, it's still far better for them to exist than not. Of course, this has produced unpleasant sensations in some of you who are reading this. That's because you are comfortably seated in front of your computer terminals, with full stomachs, plenty of food in the refrigerator, abundant entertainment in your books, email, television, social activities and so on, and it really does pain you to realize the particulars of those who are less well off. But isn't this a little self-centered? What happens if you go to Calcutta, or go to any small village in Africa that you look down on, and talk to the people? You know very well what happens: they don't think that their lives are meaningless or completely destitute. And if they knew what you were thinking, that the world would be a better place without them, they would be utterly baffled at your lack of understanding. Lee Corbin Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15216