25 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWow, perhaps that's what G8 has been missing all these years.....and Greenpeace.
The planet does not have any interests. The planet doesn't care about the planet.
Therefore, there is no planet's sake.
Therefore, no.
It's a revelation!
25 Jan 10
1 edit
To the degree that the "planet's sake" is our sake or perhaps better each of our sakes and to the extent that individuals fail to internalize the costs that their behavior imposes on everyone (say by having another kid) then limiting or discouraging additional children could be justified.
Of course, as scarcity increases prices should rise, making the costs of childrearing greater. The question would be if the price under this system would be the correct one in terms of aligning individuals' incentives with those of our society.
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionThe perfect answer.
To the degree that the "planet's sake" is our sake or perhaps better each of our sakes and to the extent that individuals fail to internalize the costs that their behavior imposes on everyone (say by having another kid) then limiting or discouraging additional children could be justified.
Of course, as scarcity increases prices should rise, making the c ...[text shortened]... d be the correct one in terms of aligning individuals' incentives with those of our society.
😀
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by FMFI agree!
Of course it is. As is prosperity. And financial security. Birth rates have been falling rapidly in the developing world. The Malthusian doom stories of the 1970s now seem clearly overblown. The only country that tried to legislate how many children people can have - China - probably didn't need to.
25 Jan 10
Originally posted by ich binimKopfwegGovernment policies that encourage infanticide are worse than allowing people to breed as they choose.
oh well then I suppose allowing the people to churn out more and more kids, watching them starve is not nearly as bad as having a copious amount of males?
26 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionYou're getting to the core of the issue here. When people say things like "save the planet!" they really mean "save the living environment of humans!". But that sounds a lot less important, doesn't it?
To the degree that the "planet's sake" is our sake or perhaps better each of our sakes and to the extent that individuals fail to internalize the costs that their behavior imposes on everyone (say by having another kid) then limiting or discouraging additional children could be justified.
Of course, as scarcity increases prices should rise, making the c ...[text shortened]... d be the correct one in terms of aligning individuals' incentives with those of our society.