Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
|
 |
|
10-09-2005, 21:53 PM
|
#61 (permalink)
|
|
Contributor
Join Date: 08-22-04
Location: Houston, TX
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus
If morality is just a social convention, that it has no important reality. Most human organizations can be easily overturned and destroyed, and their morals along with them.
|
I think that morality is important for humans. Without it we would destroy ourselves. You can argue that the destruction of mankind isn't significant for the universe, but it certainly is important from the perspective of man.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus
I enjoyed Barrowaj's hinting at morality being an evolutionary outgrowth, I think this is very close to the truth.
|
I meant to do more than hint at it... I believe that this is the underlying cause for morality, and I think the fact that it helps us survive makes it relevant.
Lets use the suicide bomber as an example. The suicide bomber believes that blowing himself up and killing a bunch of people is going to advance his cause, which is the propagation of radical Islam. The terrorist group that he belongs to thinks that this is a moral cause, and the bomber thinks that this is a moral cause. However, the greater part of society that he is blowing up probably does not. Therefore his actions are immoral. But if you believe that morality is a evolutionary outgrowth, then the only way to judge effective morality is by whether a "moral" is advantageous to society. In the case of the suicide bomber, I would argue that his cause is a hinderance to the advancement of mankind, and is therefore immoral. So you see that morality IS relevant for man. |
|
|
|
10-09-2005, 22:02 PM
|
#62 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 10-29-04
Location: Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Country: 
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by barrowaj
I think that morality is important for humans. Without it we would destroy ourselves. You can argue that the destruction of mankind isn't significant for the universe, but it certainly is important from the perspective of man.
I meant to do more than hint at it... I believe that this is the underlying cause for morality, and I think the fact that it helps us survive makes it relevant.
Lets use the suicide bomber as an example. The suicide bomber believes that blowing himself up and killing a bunch of people is going to advance his cause, which is the propagation of radical Islam. The terrorist group that he belongs to thinks that this is a moral cause, and the bomber thinks that this is a moral cause. However, the greater part of society that he is blowing up probably does not. Therefore his actions are immoral. But if you believe that morality is a evolutionary outgrowth, then the only way to judge effective morality is by whether a "moral" is advantageous to society. In the case of the suicide bomber, I would argue that his cause is a hinderance to the advancement of mankind, and is therefore immoral. So you see that morality IS relevant for man.
|
I certainly agree that morality is relevant. I would be foolish to ignore the many millions that base their actions on a moral code. My point is that since morality does not refer to an objective state, we are under little obligation to follow it.
I do judge if morality is effective or not from the evolutionary stand point. But some times, morality gets in the way. Sometimes mass amounts of people have to die in order to preserve the species. |
|
|
|
|
10-09-2005, 22:50 PM
|
#63 (permalink)
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: 11-10-04
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Country: 
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus
Sometimes mass amounts of people have to die in order to preserve the species.
|
Examples? |
|
|
|
|
10-09-2005, 23:15 PM
|
#64 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 10-29-04
Location: Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Country:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parihaka
Examples?
|
Good question. Right now, I believe the Earth is in a period of unsustainable population growth. By 2050, the world's population may have increased by another four billion people. By end of the century, the world population might double or triple.
What I mean is that something has to give. There is an unlikely scenario that everyone on Earth may just start having two children and keep the population stable. Most likely though, the population will rise ever more. These excess billions will put immense strain on the world (namely, food supplies), and may even threaten the survival of our species. Many will die of starvation.
These populations don't necessarily need to be gunned down per se, or put into death camps. But they will die all the same. If the world was forced to support them, it would be a very tenuous situation. |
|
|
|
|
10-10-2005, 18:07 PM
|
#65 (permalink)
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: 11-10-04
Location: Te Ika a Maui
Country:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus
Good question. Right now, I believe the Earth is in a period of unsustainable population growth. By 2050, the world's population may have increased by another four billion people. By end of the century, the world population might double or triple.
|
Unlikely to happen. The overpopulation scenario has been running since the early seventies with Ehrlich et al and none of the dire projections have come about, infact the rate of increase is in decline. The Population Division of the United Nations has predicted (2004) that the human population will peak at about 2050 and subsequently decline and probably stabilise. Obviously it needs to be managed and climate variability will have an effect, but the human/biosphere interaction is complex and unlikely to lead to some gross and simplistic distortion.
Last edited by Parihaka : 10-10-2005 at 18:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
10-10-2005, 18:17 PM
|
#66 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 10-29-04
Location: Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Country:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parihaka
Unlikely to happen. The overpopulation scenario has been running since the early seventies with Ehrlich et al and none of the dire projections have come about, infact the rate of increase is in decline. The Population Division of the United Nations has predicted (2004) that the human population will peak at about 2050 and subsequently decline and probably stabilise. Obviously it needs to be managed and climate variability will have an effect, but the human/biosphere interaction is complex and unlikely to lead to some gross and simplistic distortion.
|
You may be correct, and I may be in error. I will investigate and modify my opinions accordingly. |
|
|
|
|
10-10-2005, 23:07 PM
|
#67 (permalink)
|
|
Senior Contributor
Join Date: 10-29-04
Location: Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ
Country:
|
Parihaka, I may be beginning to agree with you. I'm glad you pointed out the error in my facts. I have another story from the BBC to corroborate your facts. Good news in any case.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3560433.stm
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BBC News
Last Updated: Tuesday, 23 March, 2004, 12:17 GMT
World population growth 'falling'
Africa's population is set to fall
The growth rate of the world population has slowed down, according to the US Census Bureau.
Its report says there were 74 million more people in 2002 - well below the 87 million added in 1989-90.
The rate of growth peaked 40 years ago, when it stood at about 2.2% a year. The bureau partly attributes the drop to women having fewer children.
It also projects a population decline in Africa because of the lower life expectancy due to HIV-Aids.
In 1990 women around the world gave birth to 3.3 children on average, the report says.
Click here for a population projection chart
By 2002, the average had dropped to 2.6 children - slightly above the level needed to assure replacement of the population.
The bureau's projections show the level of fertility for the world as a whole descending below replacement level by 2050.
It forecasts there will be nearly 9.1bn people by 2050, just under a 50% increase from the 6.2bn in 2002.
Dying young
The report suggests that the proportion of people over the age of 65 will continue to increase - from 7% to 17% by 2050.
The projections also indicate that by 2010, some African countries will experience falls in life expectancy at birth to about 30 years - a level not seen since the early 20th Century.
Much of this trend is likely to result from Aids, the report says.
It adds the trend could reverse if Aids education programmes are expanded in developing nations.
It points to positive signs in Thailand, Senegal and Uganda, where the epidemic appears to have been stemmed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:53 PM.
|
| 
Similar Threads
