Download
1 / 15
150 likes | 284 Views
Here discusses Mill's view on population control, the definition of Nature, and Botkin's contrasting definition.
E N D
Mill vs. Botkin Uses of Nature
[Context] Mill: Utilitarianism “The Good” is: Whatever produces the greatest pleasure for all and minimizes pain for all.
The term “nature” has multiple conflicting meanings. • Nature (the outdoors) is beautiful and good, relaxing and a stress releiving. • Nature (circle of life) is “the work of a demon.” • An action is good it is “natural,” bad if “unnatural.” • “Nature” is the universe including humanity. • “Nature” is the outdoors, apart from humans.
Mill’s Summary View (?) • Like Locke, Mill views nature as either ‘evil’ or ‘supplemental’: not for humanity! • “The scheme of Nature, regarded in its whole extent, cannot have had, for its sole of even principal object, the good of human or other sentient beings.” • Like Locke, Mill believes humans must ‘mix labor’ to benefit from nature. • “the duty of man is to cooperate with the beneficial powers, not by imitating, but by perpetually striving to amend, the course of nature.”
Application of Amending Nature: Controlling Population Is it better for a population to be naturally ‘thinned’ by starvation and thirst, or by artificially controlling birth rates of those who are at risk of starvation and thirst?
Hockeystick is a Tribbles problem? • Yes: the more people, the less resources for increasing pleasure. • Mill’s list: solitude, food, livelihood, natural enjoyment. • Sum: “Art of Living” decreases as human population increases giving less utility and a “bad” outcome.
Is there a point at which human population increase leads to wealth and health decrease?
Botkin: On Nature • Nature (including humans), is a chaotic, integrated, and reflexive complex system. “When we influence nature, we influence ourselves; when we change nature, we change ourselves.”
Botkin: On Nature • The principle contribution to ‘change’ by humans is “technology.” • E.g. Whatever population/wealth:health threshold exists, it must include the cost/benefits of technology, as we learned from the moving graph. • I.E. There is no simple “hockey stick” problem.
Botkin: On Nature “Having altered nature with our technology, we must depend on technology to see us through to solutions.” -E.g. Medical technology has increased health and wealth of humans, making humans THE distinct “trophic” species. Thus, we need more medical technology to allow humans to use less resources.
