Compare the moral requirement for zero population growth to the moral requirement for respect for human life. Which moral requirement is stronger (which one wins) and why?
2006-12-18 14:28:19 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
As the population of the earth explodes, the moral requirement of zero population growth will become more important. I hope we don't get to the point where respect for human life is less, and that vision must propel us to do as much as we can now to avoid the consquences asap. Those countries with a "big-family" mentality must be informed we will not destroy our own quality of life to make up for their bad judgment. Small steps now can prevent bigger disasters in the future.
2006-12-18 14:33:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If questions such as this were something any person or group was really powerful enough to decide and act upon, the winner would be ZPG because in the material sense, it benefits the folks who are doing the deciding, one hundred percent of the time.
There's no fundamental logic you can apply to a question like this because the answer depends only on the answerer's values. That is, do you value the prevention of suffering of living people more, or do you value the overall quality of life of the species' survivors? Or maybe you value the survival of life on earth. Or maybe you value individual freedom. Or maybe you value the continuation of the species only if it values human life above all else....
2006-12-18 17:08:51 · answer #2 · answered by zilmag 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
if zero growth is moral, then human life has no meaning.
no one wins because there is no increase in the population at any given time,
this might cause a decrease in the populous, who decides?
2006-12-18 14:38:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm gonna go with Batty and Sporeformer's answers.
And I'd also argue that respect for human life might entail population decline, because of the possibility that less humans is good for the overall quality of life for humankind...
There you go
2006-12-18 18:13:03 · answer #4 · answered by Tuna-San 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This wouldn't be a problem if americans didn't produce a far higher percentage of the world's garbage and consumed a majority of the world's resources.
2006-12-18 14:57:52 · answer #5 · answered by idonross 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have never seen them as mutually exclusive!
Why would it be either/or?
2006-12-18 15:00:48 · answer #6 · answered by Batty 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋