Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: the FORCE of Property: People's Freedom to Produce
Message-ID: <655@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 03:46:51 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.655
Posted: Sat Feb  9 03:46:51 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 05:10:51 EST
References: <4521@cbscc.UUCP> <423@whuxl.UUCP> <1182@ut-ngp.UUCP> <431@whuxl.UUCP> <8108@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 100

> What all this arguing about social organizations, libertarianism vs.
> anarchism vs. socialism vs. whatever, and trying to find fault with
> this or that system, is ignoring is that the cause of all the problems
> is simply excessive people.

I do agree that large populations do have special problems and that many
problems are exacerbated by large populations, but there is still a
significant amount of harm done by groups of people's desire to prevent
practices that they personally dislike.  This has occurred throughout
history in large and small communities.  I guess there is nothing that
compares to the self-righteous feeling that people get when they think
they are acting for the good of everyone.  Hey! let's force people to
subsidize medical care...Now let's prevent people from doing things that
we consider unhealthy, because the burden of this subsidized medical care
is too great...

> Without excessive population, the whole concept of "government" and
> "social order" is moot. There is never any need for government if
> you live out your life without coming into contact with or interacting
> with other people, because the "problems" (which governmental systems have
> been created to solve) that have been artificially
> created by having large numbers of people forced into contact with
> each other never arise in the first place. All these "solutions" which
> net.politics is debating are for "problems" which we have created
> ourselves, and which will vanish if this mass of humanity were to
> vanish, and be replaced by a dispersed group of human beings which
> are of limited enough numbers that will fit into the natural
> environment without damaging it.

I like the idea of smaller populations, but I am not sure that it would
prevent people from trying to force others into submission.  Can you provide
examples of how a smaller population would cut down on the persecution of
individuals through victimless crime laws?  I am not saying you are wrong,
I just don't see how it directly applies.

> The only reasons I have ever seen for there being more human beings than
> there are grizzly bears or blue whales or any other creature at the
> top of its food chain have been religious ("go forth and multiply"
> divine orders) and self-aggrandizing ("I want a lot of sons to carry on
> my family name and support me and give me power and strength"). I don't
> find those reasons valid or defensible.

I don't like these reasons either, I am glad that you aren't suggesting
legislation preventing procreation for either of those reasons.  I like
the idea of trying to lead a good example a lot better.

> Note that this does NOT mean that humans have to live a subsistence
> hunter-gatherer existence, and have the classical "nasty, brutish, & short"
> lives of primitive peoples. Ther is no reason why we cannot devote
> our technology to devising automated support systems, using non-damaging 
> sources of power like geothermal energy, robotic repair and maintenance, and
> underground systems of production and distribution (coupled with airborne),
> that will provide each member of such a limited human population with a 
> life of luxury and ease, which they may spend in artistic effort, 
> scientific research, or contemplating their navel, as they choose.

Good show!  I too am for such an existence.


> I find nothing outlandish in this as a "racial goal"; it requires
> a fundamental change in our present value system, in which we seem
> to ostensibly ascribe some arbitrary high "value" to human lives,
> and verbally claim that it is good that people are alive or living
> longer, while at the same time devoting effort to kill off this or
> that group of people. This is merely hypocrisy, of course. Any
> amount of people over a certain level have not only no value, but
> negative values. (That level seems to me to be about 100,000; arguments
> about this being too restrictive a gene pool are easily countered by
> keeping extensive gene banks (or sperm & ova banks).)

I believe it an admirable goal, and since you don't appear to desire
force or threat of force to meet such a goal I must admit I think it
is a good idea.  I don't know about 100,000 as a particular number,
but I do think I thinned human population would help many global
problems immediately and maybe everything else would work itself out.

> I've done my part in this; I've been sterilized and have no children.

I too am sterilized (I had a vasectomy--standing in front of a terminal
screen filled with @'s would have taken too long :-) and I have no children.
I don't know what age you decided to go for the big S, but I started
thinking about it when I was 16.  I fought like hell when I was 18 to
find someone that would perform the operation and after I convinced
a doctor and waited the 6 month cooling off period I was 19 years old.
I haven't regretted the decision.  There are enough people out there without
me bringing more into the world.  I still intend to be a parent, but I
don't need to boost my ego by making sure the kid has my genes.

Setting an example is better than force any day.

> If we merely redirected the wasted efforts we now are expending on
> useless nonsense, we could achieve this (I would call it Paradise)
> in a few generations. This does not preclude the concomittant
> expansion and dispersion of humanity throughout space, either.

Sounds good to me.

> Will Martin

--Cliff