Some considerations about human population and ethics.

Ethics and moral attitude can be summarized by the word “care”, as in, if a friend of mine gets hurt, I care for her well being. “Concern” is also operative. I am not going to make an argument about how we are not supposed to care for one another; that would just be plain dumb. But I am going to bring up what might seem difficult considerations.

Take for example terrorism, human migration and drugs. What do those have in common? People die. Ethics and morality (ill just say ethics now) says we should care about human life and work to perpetuate life and help humans have a better life.

Yet, there are groups who will say “not my problem”, it is possible to view such an ethical position as a innate reaction to a perceived inability to accommodate the life and health of all those people, that such groups are only capable of viewing the world with reference to what life and health they are able to give their won group.

That is not my disturbing news, though.

Think about the repercussions of the ethical mandate, the apparently natural motion which would, if it could, have all human beings living out their natural life in relative comfort. Think about if every human being lived out their natural life without murder, of any form, or death from trying to get out of a bad place, or death due to people using drugs to make their life feel better.

We would have a shit load of people on the planet. Kinda like…soylent-green-e1415377581704 Soylent Green

The question must follow: Would the planet be able to support exponentially more than 7.3 billion (est. 2018 population of the globe, since there would be no offsetting decrease in population from all the people dying of “unnatural” deaths for all the people being born, All thesepeople all living at once, in relative comfort, and growing every day?

I don’t think so.


I started reading the book “Evil in Modern Thought” by Susan Neiman. I never thought about it before, but in the past, people used to say that certain acts of nature were ‘evil’ as well as acts people would do, whereas now days we generally only think “evil” in terms of what people do. In fact, she talks about how it was a natural act, namely the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, that marks the beginning of the modern era.


In consideration of pure numbers of people, it would appear that the population we do have now could actually be a product of a natural occurrence of population control. That for all our ethical conundrums of feeling bad for the migrants who die en route simply because they could no longer live happily and peacefully in their home country, such events cold actually be natural population controls. But of course, in order for us to think in that way, we would have to see human beings as part of the natural process, an idea which is rather offensive and problematic in practical application. It seems like such a cold place.

But on the flip side of that cold universe, it is possible to understand that we can not possibly have everyone live who we would wish to live, and by extension, those who should be allowed to live peacefully as part of the human family.

Just some thoughts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s