[copious.abundance]

What about the statement "there seem to be plenty of people"? Is it ok to say "that's enough people"? Are the not-yet-conceived as special or not-special as the currently living? More special? Less special? Equally special? Is every sperm sacred? What about every egg?

<<<loves babies, cares about fetuses, could give a rat's patootie about eggs, sperms, and zygotes.

We aren't talking about the ethics of abortion and birth control. We were talking about people who *do* come into existence. Rangerone314 is no more or less special or privileged than someone born 10 years from now. Therefore, that person born 10 years from now has the same right to food supplies as Rangerone314 does.

[ralfy]

Foreign aid to developing countries has always made up less than one percent of total expenditures of industrialized nations, which means the aid given is very small.

Still, there is one report (Soc Gen?) showing increasing transfers of wealth from industrialized nations to emerging economies.

[Pretorian]

Rangerone314 is no more or less special or privileged than someone born 10 years from now. Therefore, that person born 10 years from now has the same right to food supplies as Rangerone314 does.

Excuse me? Right to food supplies? What kind of bill of rights has a right to food supplies? Aside of all these "rights" being nothing but a neat idea, a friction of imagination, what kind of idiotic law-maker had put this "right" among other "rights" ?

[sparky]

.

Ah Pretorian ! , a breath of fresh air

There is no right or wrong , only life and death

.

[Ludi]

Therefore, that person born 10 years from now has the same right to food supplies as Rangerone314 does.

So you see access to food as a "right"? So any given person on the planet, now or in the future, has the same "right" to food as you or Rangerone? What about people in the past? Did they have a "right" to a food supply?

If a group of people obtain their food from a piece of land, do others have an equal "right" to obtain food from that piece of land? For instance, do the natives of the Amazon have a "right" to obtain food from their tribal lands? Do Europeans have a "right" to food supplies from that same piece of land? Do Bangladeshis have a "right" to food grown in the United States?

Is the "right" to food a natural right (endowed by the Creator)? Or is it a right bestowed by governments? Who enforces this "right"?

[copious.abundance]

I did not mean "right" in a legal or political sense. I meant something more like, "Expectation that they have access to food." Somebody born 10 years from now has the same expectation that they be allowed to have access to food as does Rangerone314 right now. Rangerone314 is no more or less special than that person born 10 years from now.

[Pretorian]

But since you like showing pictures I'll do the same and show you one to remind you how ultimately important your little green frogs in the Brazilian cerrado are.

So the size is the measure of an ultimate importance? Since I am not immortal what do I are about the size of the Universe? Those little green frogs might as well be more important than existence of 99.9% of Universe, as they are here for us and we dont even know whether there is life outside of this planet.
Anyways why would anybody, in his sound mind, change even 1 little green frog in Brazilian cerrado, let alone an entire specie, for more people? So you can compete with them for everything and deal with thier personal waste?

[copious.abundance]

So the size is the measure of an ultimate importance? Since I am not immortal what do I are about the size of the Universe? Those little green frogs might as well be more important than existence of 99.9% of Universe, as they are here for us and we dont even know whether there is life outside of this planet.

Yes, when you are trying to establish ultimate importance, larger areas and longer time spans are more important. Which is more important: What happens in one year? Or what happens over 20 years? And which is more important: What happens in Podunk, Kentucky? Or what happens to the entire USA?

Anyways why would anybody, in his sound mind, change even 1 little green frog in Brazilian cerrado, let alone an entire specie, for more people? So you can compete with them for everything and deal with thier personal waste?

Let's turn the clock back 100 years. Let's say someone proposed that the Great Plains and the oak savannas of Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and Iowa be spared from further cultivation in order to save the buffalo, prairie dogs, etc. Let's also pretend that this person swayed public opinion, and huge swaths of the Great Plains were left in their natural state.

Flash-forward to the present. Because of this decision 100 years ago, food is now scarce and expensive and you, Pretorian, are one of hundreds of thousands or millions of hungry beggars in the streets of New York and Chicago. Does this make you happy with the decision 100 years before to spare the Great Plains from cultivation? Of course it doesn't.

But since the Great Plains were, in fact, allowed to be cultivated, you are well-fed (assuming you live in the US or Canada). Now, what makes you so special that it is OK for you to be well-fed from the bounty of the Great Plains, while someone born 10 or 100 years from now isn't as special as you and they are not allowed to be well-fed from the bounty of the Brazilian cerrado?

As I said before, in order to make your argument to preserve the Brazilian cerrado from at least some additional cultivation, you are going to have to come up with a compelling reason why you are so special and it is OK for you to be well-fed, while someone born in the future is less special than you and it is OK to let them be hungry beggars on the streets of Delhi or wherever.

[Pretorian]

So the size is the measure of an ultimate importance? Since I am not immortal what do I are about the size of the Universe? Those little green frogs might as well be more important than existence of 99.9% of Universe, as they are here for us and we dont even know whether there is life outside of this planet.

Yes, when you are trying to establish ultimate importance, larger areas and longer time spans are more important. Which is more important: What happens in one year? Or what happens over 20 years? And which is more important: What happens in Podunk, Kentucky? Or what happens to the entire USA?

Anyways why would anybody, in his sound mind, change even 1 little green frog in Brazilian cerrado, let alone an entire specie, for more people? So you can compete with them for everything and deal with thier personal waste?

Let's turn the clock back 100 years. Let's say someone proposed that the Great Plains and the oak savannas of Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and Iowa be spared from further cultivation in order to save the buffalo, prairie dogs, etc. Let's also pretend that this person swayed public opinion, and huge swaths of the Great Plains were left in their natural state.

Flash-forward to the present. Because of this decision 100 years ago, food is now scarce and expensive and you, Pretorian, are one of hundreds of thousands or millions of hungry beggars in the streets of New York and Chicago. Does this make you happy with the decision 100 years before to spare the Great Plains from cultivation? Of course it doesn't.

well apparently my happiness wasnt the main concern of that action. You know, you cant make everybody happy, much less those who will be born 100s of years from now.

But since the Great Plains were, in fact, allowed to be cultivated, you are well-fed (assuming you live in the US or Canada). Now, what makes you so special that it is OK for you to be well-fed from the bounty of the Great Plains, while someone born 10 or 100 years from now isn't as special as you and they are not allowed to be well-fed from the bounty of the Brazilian cerrado?

As I said before, in order to make your argument to preserve the Brazilian cerrado from at least some additional cultivation, you are going to have to come up with a compelling reason why you are so special and it is OK for you to be well-fed, while someone born in the future is less special than you and it is OK to let them be hungry beggars on the streets of Delhi or wherever.

As I see we are going to talk about rights of invisible men again.Ok, before we start, let me ask you this: what makes you ( or your friends from the future) so special that little green frogs in Brazil have to die so you will be well-fed. What about those little green frogs that could be born 10, 100 years from now. Are you more special then them too?

[Ludi]

I did not mean "right" in a legal or political sense. I meant something more like, "Expectation that they have access to food." Somebody born 10 years from now has the same expectation that they be allowed to have access to food as does Rangerone314 right now. Rangerone314 is no more or less special than that person born 10 years from now.

So you're saying a person who actually exists is no more important than an imaginary person? There is no "person born 10 years from now." That person does not exist.

I doubt imaginary people have any expectations at all.

[Ludi]

, you are going to have to come up with a compelling reason why you are so special and it is OK for you to be well-fed, while someone born in the future is less special than you

He is special because he exists. "Someone born in the future" does not exist. You are imagining this person.

[Ludi]

Let's turn the clock back 100 years. Let's say someone proposed that the Great Plains and the oak savannas of Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and Iowa be spared from further cultivation in order to save the buffalo, prairie dogs, etc.

I guess the people who already lived there and had an expectation of being allowed to continue their way of life, were less special, in your opinion, than the "people of the future."

The Native Americans aren't even mentioned in your list of things to save on the prairie - "buffalo, prairie dogs, etc" Maybe the Native Americans who already lived there are in the "etc" category and the settlers who later moved into the area were more special than them?

Why were the settlers and immigrants more special than the Native Americans, in your opinion?

[Ludi]

Why are the imaginary people of the future more special than the people who already live in the cerrado?

38 indigenous groups live in the cerrado, 3 of these groups are facing extinction. Why are these people less special than people who don't exist? Are they in the "etc" category like the Native Americans of the North American prairies?


http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/ ... pacts.aspx

http://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/brazilian

[copious.abundance]

well apparently my happiness wasnt the main concern of that action. You know, you cant make everybody happy, much less those who will be born 100s of years from now.

True, your happiness wasn't the main concern of that action, but it will certainly affect your happiness nonetheless.

As I see we are going to talk about rights of invisible men again.Ok, before we start, let me ask you this: what makes you ( or your friends from the future) so special that little green frogs in Brazil have to die so you will be well-fed. What about those little green frogs that could be born 10, 100 years from now. Are you more special then them too?

And you are talking about the rights of invisible green frogs.

Those little green frogs of the future are neither more nor less special than the humans of the future (or humans of the present). So, we are down to 2 options:

#1. Place primary importance on invisible green frogs of the future, or:
#2. Place primary importance on invisible humans of the future.

It is understood that neither is more or less special than the other. It is also understood that the very long-term, cosmic consequences of the extinction of either or both is nill, and that the extinction of both species is inevitable. That is, neither species needs to be saved for any long-term, cosmic need. (Footnote: Actually, a case for the long-term, cosmic-importance of human beings can be made invoking the Strong Anthropic Principle, but that is still speculative at this point so I will ignore it for this discussion).

Now, if I was one of those little green frogs, I would of course consider #1 to be more important. After all, I would merely be looking out for my own species. But, alas, I am not one of those little green frogs. So, naturally, I am going to place more importance on #2. I'm merely looking out for my own species, after all.

A counter-argument is that humans are special because we have so much power, while little green frogs are powerless. So why should we abuse our power and destroy their habitat for our own needs? My answer to that is, if the roles were reversed and green frogs were more powerful than us, they would do the same to us.

Since the long-term, cosmic implications of destroying the habitat of the little green frogs is inconsequential, and in the meantime, since it is "natural" for one to look out for one's own species, there is nothing "wrong" with sacrificing some of the habitat of the little green frogs. If they were in our shoes, they would do it to us.

Now, I have no problem with setting aside nature preserves and such to save *some* of their habitat out of the goodness of our hearts. As I said before, I like nature and wilderness as much as anyone else. But I do not elevate it to some "sacred" status where it needs to be preserved at any expense. Ultimately it does not matter, so I see no reason why at least some of it cannot be used for our own needs.

Why are the imaginary people of the future more special than the people who already live in the cerrado?

38 indigenous groups live in the cerrado, 3 of these groups are facing extinction. Why are these people less special than people who don't exist? Are they in the "etc" category like the Native Americans of the North American prairies?

Believe it or not, I work for an Indian tribe. And I can think of very few who would prefer to live the way of their ancestors 150-200 years ago rather than the way they live today.

In the meantime, the numbers of those indigenous groups facing extinction are very small. But the land they live on could feed many many millions.

Ancient Vulcan saying: "It is logical: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or of the one."

[hillsidedigger]

"In the meantime, the numbers of those indigenous groups facing extinction are very small. But the land they live on could feed many many millions."

Millions, maybe, but it won't be enough or last for very long. Then what? At the loss of what?


That's a paradox without a human solution but blind market and natural forces don't care.

[Ludi]

In the meantime, the numbers of those indigenous groups facing extinction are very small. But the land they live on could feed many many millions.

But those millions don't exist. You have said they are in the future.

[copious.abundance]

In the meantime, the numbers of those indigenous groups facing extinction are very small. But the land they live on could feed many many millions.

But those millions don't exist. You have said they are in the future.

Do you doubt they will eventually exist? Furthermore, there are millions being born *right now* who will need to consume food from the Brazilian cerrado. So many of these people do already exist, and these still far outnumber the 3 or so indigenous groups facing extinction.

[copious.abundance]

Millions, maybe, but it won't be enough or last for very long.

How do you know? There are farmlands in Asia and Europe which have been cultivated non-stop for thousands of years. The Great Plains have been under constant cultivation for at least 150 years. And so on for other farmlands of the world. How do you know this won't be true of the Brazilian cerrado?

[Ludi]

\Furthermore, there are millions being born *right now* who will need to consume food from the Brazilian cerrado.

No they don't. They do not need to consume food which does not exist. There is plenty of food to feed the current population. It is not fairly distributed.

The US throws away 40% of its food.

[Ludi]

http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/kentstate.cfm