Philosopher wants the world to breed :td

This has to be one of the worst essays I have ever read, all dressed up as academia. Reading this "essay" is proof that being a univ. professor does not mean one is smart.

His arguements can easily be challenged and declared invalid. On the language side, this is the first time I have ever seen 5th grade English used to write a philosophy essay by someone with a career such as his.

In other words, what a load of steaming :BS

http://gawker.com/heres-the-philosophy-essay-vox-found-too-upsetting-to-p-1727243459

Quote
Peace
This has to be one of the worst essays I have ever read, all dressed up as academia. Reading this "essay" is proof that being a univ. professor does not mean one is smart.

His arguements can easily be challenged and declared invalid. On the language side, this is the first time I have ever seen 5th grade English used to write a philosophy essay by someone with a career such as his.

In other words, what a load of steaming :BS

http://gawker.com/heres-the-philosophy-essay-vox-found-too-upsetting-to-p-1727243459

How many times have we heard this exact same argument previously? This academic (and I put very little value in the term) hasn't had a single original thought in his head, ever. He wouldn't know what to do if he had an original thought, much easier to read books/mindless blogs others have written and paraphrase it to his liking, calling it original. He is like so many other academics, good at rote learning and obtaining good grades and that is about it. Memorization doesn't equal intelligence. He couldn't critically think his way out of a paper bag and the fact that he has the audacity to publish this tripe is proof.

What's next? Some "academic" mathematician rewords Nash's game theory and wins the Nobel prize?

We've already overshot the world's carrying capacity as far as population goes.

Quote
Article's Author
We have an obligation to go on with humanity, as long as we can, and as long as we create future individuals who live lives worth living.

That's very easy to say when you are an academic who lives a very insulated life at Stockholm University.

If this guy really hoping to see a world population of 10, 20, or 50 billion (as he states in the article), he should take a look at some images from the slums of Mumbai, India. This puts a human face on what overpopulation actually looks like.




I encourage you to Google search what the situation throughout Indian cities is like in terms of clean drinking water, sanitation, disease, food supply, etc.

But why would anybody want that many people? He's just like someone I read from an atomic energy blog who thinks that we can nuclear power our way to 20 billion people because he thinks people are "valuable resources with enourmous potential"

Besides, who would spend $100,000,000 on a college education to major in philosophy? I think only men who want to be Catholic priests do.

Besides, isn't philosophy a line of cosmetics on QVC?

I "know" an another philosopher who recommends the exact opposite.
This is his legacy:
David Benatar: Better Never to Have Been - The Harm of Coming
into Existence.

Abstract: Most people believe that they were either benefited or at least not harmed by being brought into existence. Thus, if they ever do reflect on whether they should bring others into existence---rather than having children without even thinking about whether they should---they presume that they do them no harm. Better Never to Have Been challenges these assumptions. David Benatar argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. Although the good things in one's life make one's life go better than it otherwise would have gone, one could not have been deprived by their absence if one had not existed. Those who never exist cannot be deprived. However, by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence.

Quote
mr. neptune
But why would anybody want that many people? He's just like someone I read from an atomic energy blog who thinks that we can nuclear power our way to 20 billion people because he thinks people are "valuable resources with enourmous potential"

Besides, who would spend $100,000,000 on a college education to major in philosophy? I think only men who want to be Catholic priests do.

Besides, isn't philosophy a line of cosmetics on QVC?

Philosophy is a great subject to study, actually. It requires logic and reasoning, and infuses principles of utilitarianism and ethics.

But I'm with you... no need to get a college degree in it. Study it as much as you want in your free public library, and discuss it with like-minded people online.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour
We've already overshot the world's carrying capacity as far as population goes.

Quote
Article's Author
We have an obligation to go on with humanity, as long as we can, and as long as we create future individuals who live lives worth living.

That's very easy to say when you are an academic who lives a very insulated life at Stockholm University.

If this guy really hoping to see a world population of 10, 20, or 50 billion (as he states in the article), he should take a look at some images from the slums of Mumbai, India. This puts a human face on what overpopulation actually looks like.




I encourage you to Google search what the situation throughout Indian cities is like in terms of clean drinking water, sanitation, disease, food supply, etc.

Whenever I think of India, I think of unbonny Prince Charles burbling about the slum dwellers of India, and how much more "content" they are than westerners. How they can serve as a "model" for westerners on sustainable living.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/6197#.VeLxzSVVhHw

http://inhabitat.com/prince-charles-to-become-slumlord-millionaire-of-eco-community-in-india/

Yeah. The multi gazillionaire guy who lives in a palace and jets around the world chiding the middle and working classes of the developed world for NOTwanting to live in slums made from salvaged debris.

It's people like Prince Chuck who are responsible for the all too widespread belief that concerns about overpopulation, AGW, and sustainability are just a cover for the tyrannous impulses of the One Percent: That they intend to go right on living in mansions and jetting or yachting around the globe (because they deserve it for being so enlightened) , while the rest of us live in shanties without heat, A/C, lighting, running water, or a sewage system, because that's what WE deserve for not immediately obeying them when they commanded us to give up our houses, cars, and electronic devises, to "save the earth".

In reality, it may already be too late; the extra carbon added to the atmosphere from the dawn of the industrial age till today is still there, and will be pulled out of the atmosphere and into rocks and vice versa until the sun super novas. The human over population means a loss of habitat for earth's remaining mega fauna (and the loss of rain forests and jungles worsens GW); it means that much more over fishing, depletion of the soil, depletion of water tables...It's a multi faceted nightmare.

And anyone who's ever felt his or her blood pressure spike over some idiot proclaiming that "Everyone can fit in Texas, so overpopulation's a myth!" or "It snowed this morning,so global warming's a lie!"...Blame the rich and powerful Prince Charles's of the world. These are real problems, quite possibly already insurmountable, but the One Percent is so obviously longing to see AGW especially used to reverse every gain the 99% have made in power and freedom since Magna Carta, and every improvement in standard of living since the 1600s , that I cannot blame the Conspiracy Theory Crowd for thinking everything-AGW/overpopulation/resource depletion/the Sixth Mass Extinction-as just another lie to grind our faces into the dirt. After all, we'd then be living in sustainable "order and harmony" .

As for this "philosopher"-author , he's an unspeakable idiot.