Though I agree with the following points, I don't see the
author's further suggestions consistent with them.
1.
> I am terrified by smart growth apologists. They slickly but
> falsely reassure the polity that their piecemeal solutions
> represent a coherent, comprehensive policy that will deliver our
> land endowment unscathed to generations to come.
I agree with this as written, but I see little evidence that the
population control people often do not do the same thing.
2.
> Clearly, mankind's wresting control of
> epidemiological forces had irrevocably altered demographic and
> technological reality. This changed reality obligated us to re-
> evaluate cherished ideals, jettisoning some now ill-adapted to
> healthy survival while elevating others.
I think I agree with this, too, (though I really do not have a
clue what is meant by the first sentence) but thinking about what
we do on a sustained basis has never been one of strong points.
Before there can be "population control" or "smart growth" we
must confront the values we have, why we have them and how they
necessarily blind and bind us. This is philosophy which is not a
popular subject (yet, never has there been a greater need of it).
Have the cherished values of the population control people been
so "reevaluated" (let us remember population control has been
with us as an idea for at least a century) or is that just for
other people?
3.
Finally, to demonstrate why I can't hop aboard the population
bandwagon immediately here are some questions I would need
answered before I, at least, possibly could:
3a.
To repeat: Is population control "value-free" and, if not (which
I suggest must be the answer), is it open to its "cherished
values" being questioned along with everyone else's? What are
those values?
3b.
To repeat: Is population control itself a systematic or holistic
(either side of the disjunction not necessarily meaning the same
thing) approach or does it see itself as "the answer"?
3c.
Is it not necessary to think of population as applying at both
ends of a human life? That is, should we not set a limit to
longevity of human life as well as a limit to the number of human
lives while we are at it and, if not, why not? (Is this value of
people to desire to live forever not something that should also
be questioned while we are questioning other "cherished values"?)
3d.
Should euthanasia be legalized before we attempt to limit births
or along with limiting births? If not, why not?
3e.
Should we not limit the size of each person's "environmental
footprint" which, of course, is related to their "material
wealth" before we attempt to limit births or along with limiting
births? If not, why not?
3f.
There is no more cherished value to us Americans, I suggest, than
our economic system. It is our unspoken state religion. Why is
this system of values (which is contrary, of course, to its much
rumored status as a science, assuming science itself is not a
system of values) not being questioned in the article above when
it is far more pervasive as a "cherished value" than "smart
growth"?
3g.
And should all the issues raised by all these questions not be
discussed along with the issue of poplation control before we
judge the merits of population control. And, if not, why not? Or,
have they already been discussed and, if so, where?
--
Michael Kreek
VT&T
RR 1 Box 593
Walpole NH 03608
603 756 3750
&
Acting Executive Director
Institute for Vernacular Philosophy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/5307/lwjtitle.html
603 756 3754
