The Life You Can Save: Peter Singer's Practical Ethics

[apeiron]

I agree up to this point... my experience is that DanP is highly socialized, but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value.

But things are real if they have have purposes and have effects. So there is a social level of organisation that has evolved and is in fact "the level above us all individually". It is something real, that wants something done.

Even more than this, it makes us who we are. We are all socialised much more than we realize as even our "higher" mental abilities such as to be self-aware, to have autobiographical memory, etc, are socially evolved habits of thought.

But there is this confusion going round that humans form society rather than society is what forms humans . And it is that mistaken belief that then leads to the kind of existentialist angst you express.

People live by the rules because they can't not. And then get unhappy about it because they think the rules are arbitrary.

To me it seems a better life strategy to understand the deep nature of the rules and so be able to play an active role in their continued evolution.

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

 

[nismaratwork]

But things are real if they have have purposes and have effects. So there is a social level of organisation that has evolved and is in fact "the level above us all individually". It is something real, that wants something done.

Even more than this, it makes us who we are. We are all socialised much more than we realize as even our "higher" mental abilities such as to be self-aware, to have autobiographical memory, etc, are socially evolved habits of thought.

But there is this confusion going round that humans form society rather than society is what forms humans . And it is that mistaken belief that then leads to the kind of existentialist angst you express.

People live by the rules because they can't not. And then get unhappy about it because they think the rules are arbitrary.

To me it seems a better life strategy to understand the deep nature of the rules and so be able to play an active role in their continued evolution.

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

I think that morality is a useful tool like any other, and I think it's a real construction of people and evolutionary biology. I don't think that when everyone is dead, it will matter; whether that happens in a hundred years, a million, or a billion. I'm not feeling angsty, I just place the value of say, a human life in the context of the connections that person has with others. If those connections don't exist, it comes down to one person's private world, their future, and nothing more.

We're cooperative animals; to have gotten to this point to begin with we had to be, and so we are. We are not however, moral even by our own standards for the most part, so much of what is considered moral behaviour is really isolated, not social.

I think that like nature/nurture, it's a complex interaction of both, and in the case of humanity, morality, and society, they're also a complex feedback system. That doesn't make something any more objectively real however; real things survive when nobody is there to imagine them. In my view (lets not get too QM here) the moon is there whether I'm looking or not, dead or alive. History is what it is, regardless of my observation; that is real, morality is a construct.

 

[apeiron]

We're cooperative animals; to have gotten to this point to begin with we had to be, and so we are. We are not however, moral even by our own standards for the most part, so much of what is considered moral behaviour is really isolated, not social..

This is self-contradicting. Our ability to know we are breaking social codes - not living up to them - simply proves they exist. And the fact that we then negotiate some personal balance is also part of the theory here. We are not forced to follow a path deterministically, instead we creatively choose some appropriate balance between the competitive and the co-operative courses that are open to us.

What else is freewill but our being aware of the general social context and then our ability to creatively anticipate the outcome of a fairly unlimited range of choices of how to behave? And then generally do the right thing - or reap the evolutionary consequences over the long run.

I think that like nature/nurture, it's a complex interaction of both, and in the case of humanity, morality, and society, they're also a complex feedback system. That doesn't make something any more objectively real however; real things survive when nobody is there to imagine them. In my view (lets not get too QM here) the moon is there whether I'm looking or not, dead or alive. History is what it is, regardless of my observation; that is real, morality is a construct.

But that is the claim that was being made (as cited in Baranger's paper) - competition~co-operation is a universal principle by which evolving systems self-organise. It is real and exists across all such systems.

This may be too Platonic for your tastes. But then the systems view does see form as being just as real as substance.

And yes, morality is a construct (hint: this is the view of the school of social constructionist psychology - though it often wishes it called itself the school of social constructivism so as to have avoided the inevitable po-mo confusion).

So morality is what is constructed by the collective force of past individual actions, and that construction - a moral code - is then what constrains future individual actions.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is self-contradicting. Our ability to know we are breaking social codes - not living up to them - simply proves they exist.

Note that I've consistantly said, "norms", because I don't beieve in a code to "live up to", that isn't a pastiche of fictions. I want to run a 100 mph, but failing to do so doesn't imply the reality of such speed in humans simply because I've set it as a goal. Social norms are useful only as that; norms... not good, not bad, just rules of the road which are changing and changeable given time and place.

And the fact that we then negotiate some personal balance is also part of the theory here. We are not forced to follow a path deterministically, instead we creatively choose some appropriate balance between the competitive and the co-operative courses that are open to us.[/quotee]

We seek balance for a number of reasons, including the desire to avoid punishment. Around .6%-1% of the population can't even make that determiniation, but those imagined norms are no less binding. That balance is as changeable as the context you're in anyway.

What else is freewill but our being aware of the general social context and then our ability to creatively anticipate the outcome of a fairly unlimited range of choices of how to behave? And then generally do the right thing - or reap the evolutionary consequences over the long run.

Could we have only 2 choices and still have free will? I'd say yes, so why complicate matters? Besides, evolution has allowed for people beyond just sociopaths who lack the capacity to function according to social norms; they have been very successful despite many millenia spent trying to eradicate them. Free will is the ability to choose, or withold a choice (the ultimate 3rd choice), I'm not arguing against free will.

But that is the claim that was being made (as cited in Baranger's paper) - competition~co-operation is a universal principle by which evolving systems self-organise. It is real and exists across all such systems.

This may be too Platonic for your tastes. But then the systems view does see form as being just as real as substance.

And yes, morality is a construct (hint: this is the view of the school of social constructionist psychology - though it often wishes it called itself the school of social constructivism so as to have avoided the inevitable po-mo confusion).

So morality is what is constructed by the collective force of past individual actions, and that construction - a moral code - is then what constrains future individual actions.

It's far too Platonic for my taste; for me form and substance are different. You have correctly identified my views on the matter, and... while I wouldn't ascribe to anyone school of thought, I definitely identify with SCP.

 

[DanP]

You continue to fail to produce evidence to back your claims. But then your claims continue to be incoherently formed :P.

First you accept a genetic basis to competition~co-operation (the selfish gene theory agrees). But then you dispute one of the obvious biological mechanism that are the expression of that evolutionary imperative (neuromodulators like oxytocin, testosterone, norepinephrine, etc).

Like always, you are fallacious in extreme. I only dispute your claims that oytocin is any kind of proof that morality is inborn. Those claims are voodoo. I might be posing as you say, but you are the only person on this site who in several hundreds posts produced nothing else but empty philosophy. You can't prove anything you say.

The song remains the same. Just about everybody finds a religion to preach :P

 

[DanP]

What is happening with the web is in fact a great experimental test of the principles of complex systems. So old morality gets broken down it seems due to the web, and then what new morality emerges? Does it reveal the same central striving after a productive balance between competition and co-operation? If so, then my approach is validated.

I think we would all agree that the moral answer when it comes to IP is that payment should be fair in the web world. To encourage people to produce IP (a locally constructive action) we need to have a co-operative set of social or global constraints. We must agree to pay in some common coin. And the equilibrium price will be somewhere between the old rip-off monopolistic pricing of the 1990s CD revolution and the "free" pricing of Napster rip-offing. So bring on micropayments. And boo to Apple iTunes for limiting the platforms on which tunes can run. etc.

The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?

The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?

Actually, no. What actually happens is that humans seen a medium in which they can steal almost at will, because the law enforcement is elusive on internet, the arm of law is weak, and the identity of the thief is much more easier to be protected.


There is no self organizing morality here. It's the same old song. Humans seen a way to break the laws and get away with it. It is not "self evolving morality on internet" which will stop them, but unleashing the hounds to cut with their teeth the offenders. It is organization of law enforcement, and fighting back against of the offenders which will put an end to this.

No morality. Those humans steal. They know it. They also know that for now they can get away with it. This is how much humans act.

And no, the equilibrium of price is not born of morality. Is born from the wish of the big record companies to minimize the loss. Not because they seen the "immorality of their rip-off prices". As long as they don't control the internet, they will just play to minimize their loss. If they manage to control the internet, rip-offs , as you call them (nothing is a rip off, btw, as long as you find idiots paying for it ), will come back. It's cold game theory.
A way to maximize their profits in changing market conditions. And so it is for the ones who infringe IP. Maybe one day the price for this IP will be so low , and the presence of law stronger, that paying the lowered price will be more easy then breaking the law. Cold game theory again. Morality my ***.

 

[DanP]

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times when you believe it;s a functional religion ?

 

[DanP]

Heh... no. but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value.

I do find social psychology as very real. the power of social is enormous.

My problem is generally with humans which claim that things like morality are innated and evolved naturally. Should they at least offer some proof, but they cant, at least not at the current time. All their theories are as proof-able as is a religion. Morality is a man made invention. Like religion. One of those days someone will shout that religion is naturally evolved and oxytocin is proof for the fact that we are all religious. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. One of those things which looks good on paper and in philosophy books. Codexes of law are useful. Law enforcement is useful, yes. Courts of law. Prisons. Some claims codexes of laws have origins in normative morality. I disagree. They are born from the necessity to protect your skin.

It is law, punishment and retribution which stops humans from turning on each other much more often than they do. Not morality or Lord of the Rings.

 

[DanP]

- Moral ideas evolve socially to constrain social behaviour.

Actually no. Those constrain arise from the clash of many different social behaviors in different social contexts. Those behaviors have no ethical load whatsoever by themselves.

Morality doesn't evolve to constrain anything. It's a man made narrative, a descriptive of human beleifs over the equilibrium in a certain moment in time in a certain society. Some of the elements of the story may correspond to the actual equilibrium, describing it correctly, some are personal beliefs, some are "fantasy". It also has no normative value. All in all, it's human make-belief, which fails to describe properly the equilibrium you talk about.

It's just a flawed story narrating human perception of the equilibrium. I can understand why humans have such a strong wish to make morality more than a flawed story. They are snared and blinded by ideals, going as far as inventing countless gods to give normative strength to the flawed descriptive story called morality, story which describes only believes.

 

[nismaratwork]

I do find social psychology as very real. the power of social is enormous.

My problem is generally with humans which claim that things like morality are innated and evolved naturally. Should they at least offer some proof, but they cant, at least not at the current time. All their theories are as proof-able as is a religion. Morality is a man made invention. Like religion. One of those days someone will shout that religion is naturally evolved and oxytocin is proof for the fact that we are all religious. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. One of those things which looks good on paper and in philosophy books. Codexes of law are useful. Law enforcement is useful, yes. Courts of law. Prisons. Some claims codexes of laws have origins in normative morality. I disagree. They are born from the necessity to protect your skin.

It is law, punishment and retribution which stops humans from turning on each other much more often than they do. Not morality or Lord of the Rings.

Hmmm... I think that gray area you're mentioned is the interaction between evolved morality (fear of retribution, a sense of wrongness, empathy) and the much larger realm of social structures. I'm not suggesting that this should be an article of faith, but it's hard to ignore in the light of major personality disorders, and common behaviours indipendant of social pressures.

I don't think complex moral systems have evolved, but our social interactions have, and they form the basis for more complex moral framworks. It's as easy to separate the two as it is to tell whether or not something is "genetic", or "environmental"... answer: both.

 

[DanP]

I don't think complex moral systems have evolved, but our social interactions have, and they form the basis for more complex moral framworks.

Well, it's clear that they form the basis of social interaction. Not so clear IMO about morality , moral sense and so on. IMO an emotion such as fear is nothing but an emotion. Some choose to see it as a rudiment of
morality. Their right. But I want proof about it.

Humans don't even agree of what morality is. There are several philosophical currents about it. Some pretend that adding the words genes, oxytocin, innates to a morality discussion will make such a philosophical current science. Unfortunately, it remains philosophy so far. If you are interested you can read Jesse Prinz's paper on the subject of innate morality here. Its interesting.

http://subcortex.com/MoralityInnatePrinz.pdf

 

[nismaratwork]

I'll read anything except harlequin romance.

Hmmmm... you want proof that I'm not sure you can get without resorting to interpreations of the role of neurotransmitters and hormones. Still, I can see why you and Apeiron keep going around in circles... you want hard evidence, he believes (and may be) offering it in a form you don't accept.

I need to read more about this before I referee, forgive me guys.

 

[DanP]

he believes (and may be) offering it in a form you don't accept.

Philosophy constitutes no evidence. Anyway, behaviour It's a subject I love so I continue to play my song.

 

[nismaratwork]

Philosophy is not evidence, but it can be convincing and lead to evidence. We know so much, and yet are so baffled by the complexity of the human body and brain... at some point we have to speculate based on the best available data. True, it will not be proof, but if you wait for proof we'll probably all be long dead.

 

[DanP]

True, it will not be proof, but if you wait for proof we'll probably all be long dead.

So what ? Until such a proof arise, I like my philosophy better than his.

But if conclusive scientific evidence arises Ill be forced to accept it. That will be the case with even some serious evidence point towards that conclusion. If I die before those come, so beeit. Evolution doesn't care if I was right or wrong, and I won't turn in my grave should they someday discover that morality is innate :P

 

[apeiron]

So what ? Until such a proof arise, I like my philosophy better than his.

As can be seen, I've freely cited the theory/evidence from systems science, anthropology, sociology, psychology and neurology. To claim that you are even doing philosophy, you would have to present an argument with a logical structure. Instead all we have is self-contradicting claims, vigorous denials, and games of word definition.

BTW, because you again seem out of focus, the thesis is not that morality is innate, it is that it is evolved. And further, that it is organised according to general systems principles. If you must bluster, at least bluster about something resembling the argument. :P

 

[nismaratwork]

Guys... we all bluster sometimes, and there are few issues as passionate as those touching on morality. Dan... you're taunting apeiron, and simply preferring your own views is not philosophy.

Apeiron... you've presented a lot, but your conclusions are not incompatible with Dan's... I'm baffled as to why you seem to have such rancor for his view.

I recognize bickering when I see it... this is bickering. Nothing personal, we all know I can be a bickering weenie, but it makes me qualfieid in this case to identify it.

 

[DanP]

As can be seen, I've freely cited the theory/evidence from systems science, anthropology, sociology, psychology and neurology. To claim that you are even doing philosophy, you would have to present an argument with a logical structure. Instead all we have is self-contradicting claims, vigorous denials, and games of word definition.

Philosophical ramblings are not evidence Apeiron. You didnt presented any kind of evidence. As you do in all your posts, you always steer away from anything which can pass as evidence.

 

[octelcogopod]

I think empathy is pretty immediate and that it is more basic response to when someone is in pain or distress, but I think humans in general have a hard time feeling this empathy when victims are far away. Combine this with a lack of information, problems in their own lives and a society that generally accepts the status quo and you'll have a harder time getting anyone to /really/ do anything about how much inequality there is. There are many other factors including how little control an individual has but also the monetary system and how everyone has to in the end fend for themselves and their own survival and comfort/stability.

There's also an inherent problem of how no rights are "built in" to the universe, and how taking someones supper doesn't do /anything/ to YOU, unless another decides to do something about it. This freedom which makes it very easy to take from others (and worse) can mostly be contained with law and an overarching governing state to keep things in order. In this sense how are we in richer countries responsible for those in poorer countries? Is it purely up to the group or individual to feel such a responsibility? And even when we are directly responsible by feeding off the poorer countries by way of sweat shops and cheap labor, there is still /no/ incentive for us to change, as long we we have the physical power and social/economic structures in place to allow it. It is a very cold and uncaring universe.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think empathy is pretty immediate and that it is more basic response to when someone is in pain or distress, but I think humans in general have a hard time feeling this empathy when victims are far away. Combine this with a lack of information, problems in their own lives and a society that generally accepts the status quo and you'll have a harder time getting anyone to /really/ do anything about how much inequality there is. There are many other factors including how little control an individual has but also the monetary system and how everyone has to in the end fend for themselves and their own survival and comfort/stability.

There's also an inherent problem of how no rights are "built in" to the universe, and how taking someones supper doesn't do /anything/ to YOU, unless another decides to do something about it. This freedom which makes it very easy to take from others (and worse) can mostly be contained with law and an overarching governing state to keep things in order. In this sense how are we in richer countries responsible for those in poorer countries? Is it purely up to the group or individual to feel such a responsibility? And even when we are directly responsible by feeding off the poorer countries by way of sweat shops and cheap labor, there is still /no/ incentive for us to change, as long we we have the physical power and social/economic structures in place to allow it. It is a very cold and uncaring universe.

It's not cold and uncaring, it just is what it is, and that's pretty amazing... it just kind of stinks for humans. Given that we're a mere shred of the universe, a speck on a speck, I'd say the universe is ticking along quite well.

Anyway, I'd add, empathy is moderated to a great degree by priming, and also for many requires either a vivid imagination and experience, or proximity as in... seeing, hearing, and smelling the suffering of another.

It's one thing to talk about someone dying in fear and agony, and another to be close enough to smell their fear... some people need that immidiacy... and a very small number are pathologically unmoved.

 

[ptalar]

I recognize bickering when I see it... this is bickering. Nothing personal, we all know I can be a bickering weenie, but it makes me qualfieid in this case to identify it.

That is an understatement.

 

[ptalar]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

Peter stresses the term extreme poverty. Not someone who just lives in a trailer or someone on the street. Rather it's where someone's life is in real danger and has no real options (think africa...india...).

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years, the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Your thoughts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea

There are too many people in the world. The worlds resources are becoming scarce. The quality of human life is becoming cheap, hence the outsourcing going on. I cannot be responsible for other people who should of not been born based on the world resources being scarce and not equally distributed. If a family has 12 kids is that morally just? If they are poor and starving am I responsible for their irresponsibility? If I buy some toys for myself rather than give them money to eat am I the guilty one or the smart and shrewd one? As long as I replace myself and I take care of my own that is all I should be responsible for. Not everybody else. Our taxes take care of the rest.

 

[nismaratwork]

That is an understatement.

Awww... you say the sweetest things with those marbles in your mouth.

Hey, WhoWee, Russ, Ivan, Al, CAC, etc... you want to take the "world is overcrowded" fallacy, or shall I?

The world isn't crowded... it's snug... take the USA, we have a lot of food and space. True, if you dumped 5 or 6 hundred million more people in our population overnight we'd have to give up much, but "too many people"? Nah.

Too many people usually means, 'Too many poor people, too many people in a given resource area.'

 

[ptalar]

I enjoy good discussion, do please tell me why there are not enough people on the planet and we should feel guilty about giving our excess cash to the poor and needy. Phil is my name or you can call me ptalar.

 

[nismaratwork]

I enjoy good discussion, do please tell me why there are not enough people on the planet and we should feel guilty about giving our excess cash to the poor and needy. Phil is my name or you can call me ptalar.

Hmmm, excess people on the planet is one thing Phil, but it's more to do with the lifestyles we lead rather than the sheer number of people. In short, economics come into play, it's not a practical challenge if we all magically worked together.

In practice, because we rely on oil, coal, NG, Metals, Phosphorus, etc... it's about access to resources at a certain clip that matters. As to how many humans the planet COULD support... wow, I have no idea... a lot, if we changed to a mostly agragrian way of life, using modern farming techniques.

You shouldn't feel guilty about giving your money to the poor AFAIK, and even if that were a lost cause, I don't think it's a cause for guilt.

 

[apeiron]

I enjoy good discussion, do please tell me why there are not enough people on the planet and we should feel guilty about giving our excess cash to the poor and needy. Phil is my name or you can call me ptalar.

A place to start might be considering how much of your own good life is due to a globalised economy where you benefit (probably unknowingly) from sweat shops and other forms of exploitation of the poor and needy parts of the world (where large populations, and a willingness to degrade their own environments, deplete their own ecological and mineral wealth, are what they have to sell).

A place like the US is less polluted because a place like Vietnam or India is more polluted. Goods like trainers and flower pots are less expensive in the US because someone in some other country is getting paid way below US wages.

You personally don't have total responsibility for the imbalances, but everyone clearly has some responsibility.

You can chose to be selfish and "just look after your own". But that is being selfish. Or you can seek in small ways to be a small part of the rebalancing of things.

Morality is about an equilbrium of behaviour. Globalisation does mean that the remotest part of the world are now part of "your own". You are benefiting from what is happening to others. So you should be seeking to benefit them in return.

Just dishing out aid cash is not really the answer of course, except as a crisis measure. But micro-loans, educational programs, getting rid of rich country agricultural subsidies, buying fair trade produce, not bolstering autocratic regimes, etc. There are a whole bunch of initiatives you could support.

 

[apeiron]

As to how many humans the planet COULD support... wow, I have no idea... a lot, if we changed to a mostly agragrian way of life, using modern farming techniques.

What? The green revolution has already happened. And will soon un-happen as petroleum becomes a constrained, increasingly expensive, resource, and as irrigation water disappears from the last of the great aquifers.

Or have you discovered a farming technique even more modern than chucking chemicals and dumping buckets of water on the land?

Maybe you mean permaculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

I would agree that does lie in our future, but I would doubt that it represents a step-change increase in the planet's population carrying capacity that the green revolution was.

 

[DanP]

A place like the US is less polluted because a place like Vietnam or India is more polluted. Goods like trainers and flower pots are less expensive in the US because someone in some other country is getting paid way below US wages.

So what ? The market in India is open, and the price for their work is a resultant of the market conditions. As the market conditions will change, so will the price for their work. It;s already an equilibrium for current conditions.

You personally don't have total responsibility for the imbalances, but everyone clearly has some responsibility.

No, not everyone does. And unless you want the world a big communist country, there always be what you call "imbalances". Some will have better air and better wages tan others. Maybe we deserve it. Perhaps what you call "imbalances" is actually the equilibrium. A free market equilibrium. Only commies believed in legends, such as controlled markets for the benefit of everyone and for the sake of "balancing" things socially.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, said Marx. I bet he was seeking "equilibrium and re-balancing" as well. Only that it doesn't work that way. The failure of Marxism is not a a theoretical question. It is reality. It happened time and gain in the world. Every regime based on Marxism collapsed into an economical black hole. Policy seeking to equalize individual welfare is not leading to equilibrium. Free markets are.

You can chose to be selfish and "just look after your own". But that is being selfish. Or you can seek in small ways to be a small part of the rebalancing of things.

Re-balancing ? Can you prove that the situation is out of equilibrium ? The world doesn't have to be a big communist kibbutz to be in "balance".

Morality is about an equilibrium of behavior. Globalization does mean that the remotest part of the world are now part of "your own". You are benefiting from what is happening to others. So you should be seeking to benefit them in return.

Morality is descriptive.

Yes, I am benefiting after what is happening to others. And they are already benefiting from the contact with the western civilization, and those who work for us already have a better life than those who choose they don't. And btw, you don't get to tell anyone who is "your own".

 

[alt]

What? The green revolution has already happened. And will soon un-happen as petroleum becomes a constrained, increasingly expensive, resource, and as irrigation water disappears from the last of the great aquifers.

Or have you discovered a farming technique even more modern than chucking chemicals and dumping buckets of water on the land?

Maybe you mean permaculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

I would agree that does lie in our future, but I would doubt that it represents a step-change increase in the planet's population carrying capacity that the green revolution was.

Permaculture does not just lie in our future. I lies in our present and near and distant past.

But it certainly is no answer for any burgeoning world population.

Permaculture isn't the answer .. the green revolution is seeing it's own limitations ..

In the end, no matter how far you take it, the ultimate conclusion is population reduction by evolution - natural forces such as hunger, disease, pesticlence, etc.

 

[alt]

A place to start might be considering how much of your own good life is due to a globalised economy where you benefit (probably unknowingly) from sweat shops and other forms of exploitation of the poor and needy parts of the world (where large populations, and a willingness to degrade their own environments, deplete their own ecological and mineral wealth, are what they have to sell).

A place like the US is less polluted because a place like Vietnam or India is more polluted. Goods like trainers and flower pots are less expensive in the US because someone in some other country is getting paid way below US wages.

And they are probably as happy with their lot in life as a US citizen - perhaps more so. Or should the whole world be on US wages ?

You personally don't have total responsibility for the imbalances, but everyone clearly has some responsibility.

What imbalances ? The world, rigt now, this moment, is in perfect balance. It can never be otherwise.

You can chose to be selfish and "just look after your own". But that is being selfish. Or you can seek in small ways to be a small part of the rebalancing of things.

Have you ever, I wonder, dealt with a wealthy Indian for example ? They are some of the most selfish people on Earth ! As you develope their (those you would help make more affluent, etc) lot in life, you had better make sure you develope their altruism too .. lol ..

Morality is about an equilbrium of behaviour. Globalisation does mean that the remotest part of the world are now part of "your own". You are benefiting from what is happening to others. So you should be seeking to benefit them in return.

Nice plattitude. But I can't see your point, unless you quantify the extent of such 'return'. I too, have been somewhat discontent with the 'return' I received for some efforts in the past during my life and my lot, and felt that I was used - taken advantage of, reduced to a slave in one or two cases. Will we be chasing my oppressors as well ?

Just dishing out aid cash is not really the answer of course, except as a crisis measure. But micro-loans, educational programs, getting rid of rich country agricultural subsidies, buying fair trade produce, not bolstering autocratic regimes, etc. There are a whole bunch of initiatives you could support.

To what end ?