rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

clark · 2003-04-15 06:48:12

How do we reconcile these two views:

Man is entitled to all that is neccessary to live.
Man is entitled to multiply.

Am I wrong in suggesting that these two statements are diametrically opposed to one another?

Isn't conflict inherent between the two?

Can there be a balance between the two? How?

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-15 08:49:42

If you don't get off your lazy butt and work Woman will kick you out of the house.
Woman is entitled not to multiply - get off me you sick pig.

I suppose that's what my wife would reply.

But seriously -
I assume you're taking the Malthusian point of view: If everybody keeps multiplying we will use up all of our resources.

Mass starvation isn't happening like Malthus predicted. Large parts of the world are suffering from poverty and starvation, I agree, but it's mainly because of bad distribution not population pressures. The world produces enough food and clothes for everybody but people can't get it unless they pay for it. So, if everybody just shared a little everybody would have the necessities of life.

One thing Malthus omitted from his equation was technology and human enginuity. If we were all just a bunch of apes - yes, we would have had mass starvation centuries ago. But, our farming techniques, transportation, communication, and even our society, have all improved. We will beat Malthus.

Here's a thought:
Let's say someday the Earth is swelling with 100 billion people. Most on Earth decide that's enough. The people still have all the necessities of life (they have perfected recycling by then). They just want to stop multiplying. They decide that one child per person is the limit. To satisfy the second basic right (to multiply) a person could just move off Earth. There is plenty of elbow room in the universe. Now, this is when the Mormons would start colonizing other planets! "Multiply and replenish the Earth/Asteroid/Moon".

clark · 2003-04-15 09:09:39

. Large parts of the world are suffering from poverty and starvation, I agree, but it's mainly because of bad distribution not population pressures.

Would distribution be an issue if population sizes were smaller, or were controlled?

I am not really discussing a Malthusian meltdown. I am pointing out a contradiction of rights.

We have an inherent right to all that we need to live. Yet we also hold that we have an inherent right to multiply. As we multiply, we neccessarily create extra demand for the neccessities that are an inherent right of life.

How do you keep a table set that all are allowed to eat at, yet you cannot control the number of people who eat at it?

Advances in science and technology help extend the size of the table, but it is an extension of finite resources. Expansion to areas with empty tables reduces part of the problem on this table, but what happens if we can't expand?

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-15 10:07:44

Distribution would be extremely easy if say there were only 10 people on the whole planet and they all lived in the same village. Distribution gets more difficult as the population expands. Also, distribution gets easier as locals produce more of their own goods. We just need to help the locals get back on their feet.

If we can't expand then there must be something seriously wrong. And, I would bet it is killing people by the millions (war, tyrrany, corruption) so the population pressures would be relaxed anyway. :;):

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-04-15 10:23:47

I'd like to ammend your basic rights. Most people have an good idea of what basic rights are, but they sometimes ignore the basic responsibilities that are attached to those rights.

1. Everyone (I don't like using 'man' - too archaic.) is entitled to all that is necessary to live -- if they work. If unable to work they become the responsibility of society.

2. Everyone is entitled to multiply -- if they can give their children Number 1 until they are old enough to work.

This would be difficult to police. Who defines 'able to work' or 'old enough to work'. But, it is a good set of rules to live by.

Africa for example is suffering from desease, famine, drought, illiteracy, etc. and is unable to sustain itself (unable to work). It is the responsibility of the world society to help them become self reliant.
Just passing out condoms would help with two of their major problems. AIDS could be better controlled and less children would be born into poverty.

Bill White · 2003-04-15 10:55:03

How do we reconcile these two views:
Man is entitled to all that is neccessary to live.
Man is entitled to multiply.
Am I wrong in suggesting that these two statements are diametrically opposed to one another?
Isn't conflict inherent between the two?
Can there be a balance between the two? How?

I have some quibbles with the "inherent right" idea.

Amartya Sen has written some interesting things about the "inherent rights" of private property and freedom to contract - which together are the foundation of capitalism. He does not see such "rights" as having metaphysical pre-existence - rather he argues that the recognition of such rights is benefiical for a successful society and helps its members achieve a "good" life - very Aristotle.

Whether a "balance" is possible goes to the heart of whether morals and ethics can have any real meaning in a cosmos governed by Darwinian processes.

An insightful quip - "Evolution don't take no prisoners!"

clark · 2003-04-15 12:15:57

I have some quibbles with the "inherent right" idea.

I can understand, however, would you argue against an assertion that Man has an inherent right to all that is neccessary for his life?

The issue of multiplication as an inherent right could be argued either way, IMO, yet it seems that most would agree that reproduction is an inherent right. At least society demonstrates it's agreement with such a statement.

Which leads to an obvious conflict:

A situation where all who are born into this world each have an equal inherent right to all that is neccessary to maintain that life, coupled with an inherent right to bring into this world as many others as you care to with the same equal rights.

Dosen't this create most of our social ills?

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-15 22:39:50

clark,

Man is entitled to all that is neccessary to live.

Yeah, because without life, he is no longer Man. Anything necessary to ones being tends to be necessary for them to be.

Man is entitled to multiply.

Who said? You even point out, yourself, that it's a contridiction. If Man multiplies so much that he is unable to provide all that is necessary for himself to live, then we've just broken the first rule/entitlement.

?Man is entitled to multiply so long as it does not impeed all that is necessary for himself to live,? might be a better way to put it.

Am I wrong in suggesting that these two statements are diametrically opposed to one another?

Not at all, I think it's a good observation on your behalf, even though I know it stems from your reproductive rights beliefs. But it's a basic fact that in a finite system one may not have infinite increase.

This goes for everything.

This is why Proudhon calls property ?robbery.?

Can there be a balance between the two? How?

There can, but why have we chosen those two as the ?inherent right?? Why have we chosen ?multiply? and why do we allow it when it contridicts ?live??

My main problem with your inherent rights, is that they could exist in lots of systems, good or bad. I mean, consider: everyone could be imprisoned under a Draconian King or something, and when they reach a certain age, are allowed to have children. The children work in mines somewhere, and if they don't work, are, too, sent to prisons. Most people work because prison life is hell, etc.

All your ?inherent rights? are met, but people are living in depotism.

Recall that Proudhon quote I once told you in one of my earliest threads here on these forums.

[...] liberty is an absolute right, because it is to man what impenetrability is to matter,--a sine qua non of existence; equality is an absolute right, because without equality there is no society; security is an absolute right, because in the eyes of every man his own liberty and life are as precious as another's. These three rights are absolute; that is, susceptible of neither increase nor diminution; because in society each associate receives as much as he gives,--liberty for liberty, equality for equality, security for security, body for body, soul for soul, in life and in death.

Bill, this Amartya Sen sounds interesting, I can agree with that view. I gotta look this guy up.

dicktice · 2003-04-16 08:05:11

What about universal education? I mean, every individual capable of learning, educated about the Earth as a planet and its inhabitants, the Sun and the Solar System, and the Known Universe ...taught like geography--standard basic current knowledge, independent of ideology--as a guaranteed right. Then see what we/they can accomplish!

Bill White · 2003-04-16 09:18:24

clark's inquiry may well prove that a perfectly just society is impossible to achieve in this "vale of tears" - - > but lets use the words liberty and equality and security quoted by Josh from Proudhon. If society restricts the number of children I am "allowed" to have hasn't my freedom impaired? If I have far too many children and the life support systems are swamped then I have impaired the rights of others to security and if by having 10 children, others are forced to accept 2, 1 or 0 children, how can that be equal?

Do these so-called "rights" have meta-physical pre-existence? Or do we merely create a more just and functional society by acting "as if" such rights have metaphysical existence? This is hard for me because I am a HUGE fan of Thomas Jefferson and the doctrine of inalienable natural rights.

But where do those rights come from?

TJ says it is "self evident" - - Jeremy Bentham says inherent inalienable rights is nothing but nonsense elevated on stilts -- Amartya Sen at least is trying to find a solid foundation for such rights.

Back to clarks question and Mars - is it "fair" if a certain demographic group is first to plant settlers on Mars, develops effective CELSS technology, uses Mars resources to build more CELSS and starts having kids like crazy? No it may not be "fair" but it could be reality.

Given high launch costs (perhaps a permanent condition) and the relative difficulty of getting to Mars a real demographic bottleneck may exist where any group that chooses to pay the price for space settlement may see in centuries to come a disproportionate increase in their slice of total human demographics.

Only a tiny percentage of humanity will ever leave Earth - "who" those people are (racial/ethnic groups; political persuasions; religious inclinations) will have a disproportionate impact on the demographics of humanity in the solar system.

Once CELSS is made to work, it will be far less expensive to grow population by having children compared with increased emigration of 22nd or 23rd century Terries. Fair? perhaps not, but fighting evolution is a difficult task.

clark · 2003-04-16 09:45:49

?Man is entitled to multiply so long as it does not impeed all that is necessary for himself to live,? might be a better way to put it.

One, you accept that Man is *entitled* to multiply as an inherent right; you are now placing constraints upon this inherent right. Two, you accept that the *primary* inherent right is that Man is entitled to all that is neccessary to live (be).

So it is fair, and just, (assuming a fair and just *means* is devised) to regulate the inherent right of Man to multiply since the exersice of this right affects the primary inherent right of Man?

There can, but why have we chosen those two as the ?inherent right??

From my point of view, these two inherent rights are held by everyone, form the basis of every other right we have, and these two rights are the built in conflict within every system that lead to the eventual disintegration of the system.

This is the reason why we are subject to cycles. At least, that's my hypothesis.

Why have we chosen ?multiply? and why do we allow it when it contridicts ?live??

There is a biological answer, but I am not satisfied with it.

My main problem with your inherent rights, is that they could exist in lots of systems, good or bad.

Well, yeah. They're *inherent*. wherever you are, in whatever situation you are in, these exsist. But you know that. All of the other rights of man are derived from arguments predicated on equality of being. The King and his people is a system of inequality, but as Bill suggests, there is some debate on the justification of equality and such.

There can be no argument on the primary inherent right of Man. Ifa King denies me the things of life, I am then at liberty to do what is neccessary to secure my life, even if it means murdering the King.

All your ?inherent rights? are met, but people are living in depotism.

And it could be a benevolent Despot that rules them. That's a seperate issue. There are many forms of instuting the policies of society, all have their problems. What I am trying to do is understand the relationship of the two inherent rights i have outlined.

If society restricts the number of children I am "allowed" to have hasn't my freedom impaired?

No. Your freedom is only impaired if it is imparied unequally in realtionship to the rest of Society. If the rest of society is subject to the same limitations, then it is an equal society where no freedom is impaired.

Freedom is what any can do.

Or do we merely create a more just and functional society by acting "as if" such rights have metaphysical existence?

There is no metaphysical exsistence to the rights of equality, they exsist to serve a greater purpose for us as a group. If they did exsist as metaphysical attributes, it would be difficult to deny individuals these rights of equality. But we do deny individuals these rights. We limit certain peoples rights of equality.

Equality is a human concept that reduces aggression and foments social stability.

Back to clarks question and Mars - is it "fair" if a certain demographic group is first to plant settlers on Mars, develops effective CELSS technology, uses Mars resources to build more CELSS and starts having kids like crazy?

To me, this isn't a matter of 'fair'. You are looking for fairness between those on Earth compared to those on Mars.

I am thinking about people on Mars alone. A hundred thousand people living in a city on Mars. Finite resources and space is a serious issue. People of the same society will be faced with this internal dilema of inherent rights.

People from different socieites dealing with this issue, as Earth versus Mars, have different arguments that do not neccessarily apply here.

Bill White · 2003-04-16 10:31:04

I am thinking about people on Mars alone. A hundred thousand people living in a city on Mars. Finite resources and space is a serious issue. People of the same society will be faced with this internal dilema of inherent rights.

It is my opinion that thoughout human history moral and philosophical considerations have generally given way to pragmatic considerations.

However we answer this in theory, the settlement will either accommodate the need for ecological security or it will die. Growth simply will be constrained by the ability to harvest Martian (Mars-an?) resources and create surplus life support capacity. If this is not acknowledged, people will die and either the balance will be restored or the city itself will die.

I do not think we know - right now - how effective scientists will be in perfecting CELSS technology and therefore the degree of "finite-ness" remains unknowable for the time being. Yet finite resources simple will constrain growth regardless of philosophy and I believe folks who actually settle Mars will understand this reality far better than people on Earth who are used to seemingly limitless free air and (until recently) limitless fresh water.

clark · 2003-04-16 10:43:55

However we answer this in theory, the settlement will either accommodate the need for ecological security or it will die.

Okay, so it either acknoldeges te problem, or it sticks its head in the sand. If people do not address this situation, then invariably we must develop a system that accounts for those who will not address the situation on their own.

Any such system is built on a cycle of expansion as the means to offset the pressure and threat of a conflict between the two inherent rights that we are discussing.

Growth simply will be constrained by the ability to harvest Martian (Mars-an?) resources and create surplus life support capacity.

True, practical constraints will be a determination. However, this is assuming a rational approach to the situation. Silent expectations are not as effective as I would prefer.

. Yet finite resources simple will constrain growth regardless of philosophy and I believe folks who actually settle Mars will understand this reality far better than people on Earth who are used to seemingly limitless free air and (until recently) limitless fresh water.

Thank you. I am not alone then.

Bill White · 2003-04-16 11:20:11

Any such system is built on a cycle of expansion as the means to offset the pressure and threat of a conflict between the two inherent rights that we are discussing.

I agree with this. As the Earth becomes "filled" we are forced to confront questions about "limits to growth" - settling space will allow populations to grow even if Terra needs to establish controls to limit births to a replacement rate level. Space will never solve population pressures on Earth yet it may give the more motivated "greedy breeders" a safety valve which can avoid conflict on Earth.

Filling the solar system with CELSS modules floating in interplanetary space - or building a Ringworld or Dyson sphere - surely will not answer or resolve these issues in any final or ultimate sense yet it does buy humanity some time. If in a thousand years or two thousand years several trillion people are crowding the inner solar system Ringworld and the Oort Cloud has been mined out of existence, we will re-visit these same issues.

Yet we can also hope that our species will have grown wiser by then. Where were we 2000 years ago? Where will we be in 2000 years? If we do not grow wiser, we will die.

So it goes. ???

"Merely" buying time isn't such a bad option for the 21st century, IMHO.

Cobra Commander · 2003-04-17 18:40:06

Is man entitled to multiply? I don't think so. With the partial exception of modern developed nations the "right" to reproduce was dependent on one's ability to secure one's own survival, attract a mate, provide healthy genetic material, defend oneself and one's mate (for humans, at least) until offspring can be produced, and provide for that offspring until it is capable of fending for itself. Quite a task.

If reproducing was an "inherent right" then evolution would be impossible. If you can't make the cut, your blood dies with you. You have a right to seek the opportunity to reproduce and that's about it.

Is man "entitled" to the means for survival. No. Modern man likes to believe we are and (sometimes) tries to organize society with that in mind, but it's just not true. If by "entitled" it is meant "entitled to be provided the means of survival by government/society/etc.", that is an idealogic position. Communists may accept this, I don't. On the other hand, If "entitled" means that somehow it is an inherent right, something that just "is" like some form of natural law then the whole premise is absurd. If you find yourself stranded in the desert is the universe obligated to provide you with food and water because you are "entitled" to it? Of course not, madness!

In short, neither of these things man is supposedly entitled to actually exists except as a philosophical construct in the mind of man himself, and the universe doesn't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. There is no conflict whatsoever

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-17 20:44:47

Cobra, we all know that these things are constructs of man. I can't really see where anyone suggested otherwise. Which ?natural rights? are the best ones for society, though?

Bill White · 2003-04-18 07:16:23

Perhaps we need to recognize that the idea of "right to reproduce" being asserted as a "natural right" is merely a strategy thought up by a multitude of lesser men to counter the annoyance we all feel when big strong men like the Cobra-Dude collect all the girls.

If 6 weak chimps assemble together to kill the alpha chimp and call it their "natural right" - - Well, Heh! All's fair in love and evolution, no?

PS - This is a trolling comment and does not necessarily reflect the true thoughts and feelings of its author. . .

Josh Cryer · 2003-04-20 02:15:45

Hehehe, that was brilliant.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-05-14 05:22:54

an old topic on rights perhaps worth a re-visit

Mali army, foreign forces accused of killing 500 villagers

https://www.bbc.com/news/world/africa

also a return of ColdWar politics

rumors of a Wagner presence

Mali part of an old Empire, then French speaking, now its Religion 95% Islam

UN human rights report says nearly 500 believed to have died in Mali village massacre last year
https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-human- … -last-year
Mali's UN peacekeepers fear they are becoming 'an instrument of the junta'
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international … 914_4.html
Cattle raiding by jihadis soars in Mali, fuels conflict
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/afri … flict.html
Ayouba Ag Nadroun was at the market in central Mali in March when Islamic extremists attacked his village, killing dozens of people and stealing about $10,000 worth of his cows and camels.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-11-27 08:02:44

The landmine an explosive weapon concealed it was designed to destroy or the enemy targets but often kills children, it can damage and kill anyone and anything ranging from combatants to vehicles or tanks, or innocent civilians or animals as they pass over or near it. 80% of land mine casualties are civilians, the majority of killings happen long after a war and occur in times of peace, 164 nations have signed a treaty to ban Mine-Weapons, but these do not include big players such as China, the Russian Federation, or the United States. During the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine, both Russian and Ukrainian forces have used land mines, Land mines can also have a large impact on the landscape and threaten rare biodiversity by wiping out vegetation and wildlife during explosions or demining efforts. 'Dud Bombs' or Unexploded ordnance are also a threat to civilians long after a war has finished.

Swedish soldier demining in Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbllGRjayMo

Calliban · 2023-11-27 15:04:33

One of clarke's old threads. A real charmer that guy. He still turns up occasionally to pour vitriol on anyone he doesn't agree with.

Going back to the first post:

clark wrote:

How do we reconcile these two views:
Man is entitled to all that is neccessary to live.
Man is entitled to multiply.
Am I wrong in suggesting that these two statements are diametrically opposed to one another?
Isn't conflict inherent between the two?
Can there be a balance between the two? How?

First point. Man must earn all that is necessary to live. Entitlement is a personal expectation, not a natural law. The biggest failing of European Social Democracy was the creation of a system that allowed all to receive according to their need, regardless of contribution. Need was very rapidly replaced by want. We now have a large 'benefit class', containing generations of people who have never worked. They live off the state, never think about the future and expect the state to take care of their every want and need. Their children become the state's responsibility and are misled by the bad example of their parents. It is a failing system that is dragging European countries down. The only solution is to withdraw support. Let them struggle to survive by their own merit. It is harsh and not all will survive. But it when you take responsibility for your own life, your achievements are yours and taste much sweeter. Hard men are forged by struggle. Great nations are forged by hard men who take personal responsibility.

Second point. The birthrates in the majority of nations are now shrinking. In fairness, you wouldn't have heard much about this back in 2003. But it is a real problem now. The idea of a world with too many people, reproducing out of control and exceeding global carrying capacity, was all the rage in the 1970s. But most of the world is at least partially industrialised now. And birthrates have dwindled to the point where the developed and advanced developing world, have shrinking working age populations. People are having too few children, not too many. Even India will soon drop beneath replacement birthrates. Chinese working age population, starting shrinking about 15 years ago. Their population pyramid looks like an upside down triangle trying to balance on its point. They are literally dying out as an ethnicity.

The malthusians of the 1970s had it backwards. The world is facing a population implosion that threatens economic ruin. It is turning into an old folks home.

Last edited by Calliban (2023-11-27 15:15:20)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-04-07 12:09:20

Ukrainian Farmer Strikes AP Mines With Tiller
https://funker530.com/video/ukrainian-f … th-tiller/

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-04-15 06:48:12

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#2 2003-04-15 08:49:42

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#3 2003-04-15 09:09:39

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#4 2003-04-15 10:07:44

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#5 2003-04-15 10:23:47

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#6 2003-04-15 10:55:03

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#7 2003-04-15 12:15:57

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#8 2003-04-15 22:39:50

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#9 2003-04-16 08:05:11

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#10 2003-04-16 09:18:24

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#11 2003-04-16 09:45:49

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#12 2003-04-16 10:31:04

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#13 2003-04-16 10:43:55

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#14 2003-04-16 11:20:11

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#15 2003-04-17 18:40:06

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#16 2003-04-17 20:44:47

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#17 2003-04-18 07:16:23

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#18 2003-04-20 02:15:45

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#19 2023-05-14 05:22:54

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#20 2023-11-27 08:02:44

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#21 2023-11-27 15:04:33

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

#22 2024-04-07 12:09:20

Re: rights of man in conflict - basic rights of man

Board footer