ralfy

In a way, yes, because it implies that each individual is equivalent, esp. in light of elections. In addition, it may be part of declarations that imply similar, like a Bill of Rights.

You may consider ecological footprint per capita vs. biocapacity per capita. There's criticism about biocapacity but they imply that it underestimates resource availability.

I have read Malthus, Schopenhaur, and a few others and remain almost entirely unconvinced. THey predict disaster in the next 25-50 years - and have been doing so for centuries. It's a neat excuse to deny others the rights and privileges that I enjoyed - and I won't take that option. For a nice diversion and potential solution watch some of Hans Rosling's TED lectures on birth rate / gdp per capita / female education. In fact I would always recommend watching Dr Hans - one of academia's great communicators.

 

 

 

Very good - did you read Larry Lauden's slightly ill-considered follow-up and Ruse's counter?

Forget Malthus and others. We now have warnings from various scientists, the IEA, Lloyd's of London, Morgan Stanley, the U.S. and German military, the Pentagon, the IMF, and many others of various crisis during the next few years due to peak oil, global warming, and economic crisis. You can find some sources mentioned in the "Fossil Fuel" lecture I shared in another thread.

Has anyone read anti-natalist works like Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race and older sources?