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