[lbo-talk] agricultural productivity

[Max B. Sawicky]

Productivity is swell but invariably (and measurably) overrated, 
but that aside, there is a logical issue w/this pronouncement.

If the people had not been born, they would not be people.  They would
not exist.  Better to exist than never to have existed makes no sense.
(Not the same as better to exist than to cease to exist.)  Am I happy
to have been born?  Happier than what?

So there is no case that more people means a higher level of well-being,
that population growth in and of itself is desirable (unless you're Robinson
Crusoe and you get bored with Friday).

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of James Heartfield
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 9:09 AM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: [lbo-talk] agricultural productivity

. . .
But you are not listening, Alan. Those people would not be alive without 
increased output of grains and other foodstuffs. The population increased 
from 2 billion to 6.6 billion from 1900 to 2010. World grain output rose 
from 400 million tons in 1900 to 1.9 billion tons in 1998 - without that, 
those 4.6 billion would either have starved, or never been born.

When I said that they had better lives than they would have without 
increased productivity in agriculture, I was taking it as read that it is 
better to be alive than dead. Is it really your position that people would 
have been better off not being born?

. . .