7.7 Billion People

[RWStanding]

7.7 Billion People
A problem Chris Packham and David Attenborough have is an ethical conundrum of human rights. And this is the result of not first deciding what ethical-political form of society they are basing that ethic on. Marriage only has the rights relevant to the society in which it is an institution. Or women have the right to children on the same basis. Anarchistic society believes in little beyond the individual, and therefore ‘rights’ are entirely personal and barely consider the long-term – if the future were a consideration then society would not be anarchistic, it would have moved towards altruism or a society based on duty and service to authority. Altruist society would naturally enshrine a right to children, but would intrinsically have a social responsibility that would require limitation of family size. Anarchistic society would include many forms of cultural-ethical belief, that do not outright conflict, and that might include patriarchal social groups with no belief in family limitation. Unfortunately, the convention today is such as to tolerate a wide range of belief, as an expression of tolerant altruism. It is of course nothing of the kind. There is also a total contradiction between altruist and anarchistic philosophy, in the one has a global view of society as an aggregate of individuals, whereas the other sees the world as a hierarchy of communities and nations which must put their own houses in order as the way to put global society in order. A country in chaos would have no intrinsic right to offload its overpopulation onto others. That altruist society would respect and value the natural world and its diversity is plain enough, as it would promote ethnic diversity between countries. What we presently have is the suppression of diversity in the name of global unity.

[Immanuel Can]

7.7 Billion People
And this is the result of not first deciding what ethical-political form of society they are basing that ethic on.

We don't have to decide, in order to control population. If keeping population in check is the goal, then the best, fastest and most liberating way is already available to us -- educate women.

I don't mean "educate them about sexuality through indoctrination." I mean "just educate them generally." Educated women statistically suppress their own reproduction to less than 2, on average. You can see this all over the Developed World. They do it voluntarily and without coercion or indoctrination, for economic and social reasons of their own. Just educate women.

What we presently have is the suppression of diversity in the name of global unity.

Yes, a truer word was never said. We speak about "valuing diversity," but what we really mean is "working to produce homogeneity" by way of globalization. The value placed on diversity is thought to be merely instrumental, transient and temporary; global unity is thought to be the final fact, the ultimate goal. So insidiously, we suppress diversity of thought, and hide all evidence of it, turning culture into nothing but colourful clothing, while we assert the ironclad rule of sameness underneath that superficial garb.

[odysseus]

RWStanding
Marriage only has the rights relevant to the society in which it is an institution. Or women have the right to children on the same basis.

Relevant?? This is an awfully narrow view of what a right is. Are rights of the individual (really, of any kind) reducible to what the state and its society deem relevant? I think nazi Himmler would agree.

Anarchistic society believes in little beyond the individual, and therefore ‘rights’ are entirely personal and barely consider the long-term – if the future were a consideration then society would not be anarchistic, it would have moved towards altruism or a society based on duty and service to authority.

Anarchists, proper ones, not the mindless looters, deny that any authority can replace one's responsibility to one's own moral thinking. It is not the arbitrary whim, but the independent and defensible argument that is raised as irreplaceable. One has to understand that anarchists do not live in a vacuum and their decisions as to how to behave and what policies should be endorsed in the land depend on de facto norms. This is granted, and conformity has it place to the extent that its denial would be counterproductive, a kind of pragmatic anarchism; otherwise, the concept can refuted in an instant since it would endorse chaos, Hobbes' sword: that is the rub for anarchists! They are emphatically anti fascism.

And duty and service to authority? The way you put that makes me cringe. Altruism, the consideration of others and their miseries in one's moral thinking, CAN be expressed in terms of duty, only if the duty is altruistic in nature. It therefore begs the question. Same goes for authority.

Altruist society would naturally enshrine a right to children, but would intrinsically have a social responsibility that would require limitation of family size. Anarchistic society would include many forms of cultural-ethical belief, that do not outright conflict, and that might include patriarchal social groups with no belief in family limitation.

Altruism may recommend a limit on family size, and it may be that the government is the only agency that can make this work, leaving it up to the family itself to make the determination leading to many obvious and serious problems. But this is really no different from, say, laws that force us to pay for parking or not slander others we disagree with. An anarchist may argue that parking should be free, and, given the circumstance, s/he may be right. But the concept does not require one not to pay; it just says one's one moral reasoning may not be supplanted by another's. The practical side wins out, and the anarchistic principle is not violated, only denied by prevailing unyielding conditions. Not unlike the scientist who finds the world resistant to theory, who is not therefore committed to abandoning the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the convention today is such as to tolerate a wide range of belief, as an expression of tolerant altruism. It is of course nothing of the kind. There is also a total contradiction between altruist and anarchistic philosophy, in the one has a global view of society as an aggregate of individuals, whereas the other sees the world as a hierarchy of communities and nations which must put their own houses in order as the way to put global society in order. A country in chaos would have no intrinsic right to offload its overpopulation onto others. That altruist society would respect and value the natural world and its diversity is plain enough, as it would promote ethnic diversity between countries. What we presently have is the suppression of diversity in the name of global unity.

Anarchism is not chaos. It is what I said it is above. It does assume that moral authority issues from the individual, but this authority is not that of a child's indifference to reason. You love authority far too much, it seems. The things you say suggest an offensive degree of rigor in enforcing social restrictions. You sound dogmatic.