Just a quick comment on people in developing countries and not having children- I feel that was a particularly insensitive comment. The expected life span in some countries in Africa is only 30 years and their child mortality is depressingly high. On top of that, most of the cultures are very patriarchal (women don't get to say if they want children or not). And education can be hard to come by, especially in the warring parts of the continent. It's very easy to say- 'just stop breeding' but it is a much more complex issue than just that. If the women had access to and knowledge about contraceptives, would the birth rate in those places be lower? Undoubtedly. If the health care was such that they wouldn't have to see their children waste away and die from diarrhea would they have fewer? Definitely. And that's assuming that the children still have parents, or that it was by choice that the mother got pregnant, that she isn't dead from the AIDs the man who raped her gave her.
That kind of thing is what happens in an anarchist type environment and is why I personally am very for government. It's never going to be perfect, but having ground rules means that we have the luxury of tweaking the system instead of literally fighting for our lives. Would someone be making vegan soap (for example) if at any moment they could be killed and written off as collateral damage? No way. Once you take out the need to work to survive then philosophical and moral questions can be explored, along with other cultural curiosities like art, science, music, etc.
Is it necessarily our moral obligation to feed and care for the children? I don't think so- like in the example of the pet overpopulation problem- you can't save them all, but you can save a few so long as you don't stretch yourself out too thin. My parsimony score on the 'family' portion was 18% because of this- I have made a commitment to help my family, but I haven't for a stranger. And once I do, then they are 'family' too. Therefore I feel a much stronger obligation to uphold what I already said I would do rather than help those I have not said I would. If you want to help everyone it can quickly result in helping no one (to be fair) or getting over your head (eg- hoarding).
I can see where the argument of being speciesist against humans would be valid- after all, animals can have no culpability as they aren't self aware to the extent that we are, and certainly don't have as developed an awareness of the consequences of their actions. As such, they are more 'innocent' than a human would be in the same situation. However, as so many problems with humans are societally based, and given that we humans ARE aware of larger things than just ourselves- I feel that gives us responsibility to help each other and the planet as a whole. Humans aren't going anywhere- we're too successful as a species. And even if we do- whatever would be catastrophic enough to wipe us out would likely take the planet, too.
I like the
UN Millennium Goals, I think that's headed in the right direction for controlling population and getting people on the right track. While it might not be a clear cut moral duty to help those people, it certainly would help the environment if we could get them to a place they don't feel like they have to have so many children and exploit the natural world to the point where it is being depleted/destroyed.
Ok, so not so quick a comment. Heh.