This is a line of thought that stems from comments (1, 2 and 3) on this post, specifically the last comment referenced. The question is whether things that are generally considered ‘bad’ (death, war, etc.) are inherently bad or simply labeled that by society, and whether challenging the socially accepted labels was rude.
The last point first: no, it is not rude at all so long as the way the conventions are challenged is also not rude (and, in this case, I didn’t think that it was rude at all). It was an example of neither logical nor social rudeness, though calling into question such a widely held belief as “death is bad” is bound to cause some recoil by those who read it. Also, since the beliefs we’re talking about are so widely held, the positions that people hold will likely seem extremely obvious to them and thus the idea of questioning them totally ludicrous. That does not mean that one should not question them, simply that they should be prepared and thick-skinned when they do.
An aside… I finished The Jungle by Upton Sinclair while on the train to Shanghai. It is a tremendous book, one that should be read (twice) by anyone who supposes laissez faire capitalism to be a good thing. I bring this up because near the end, when Jurgis discovers socialist thought, it seems so painfully obvious to him that he cannot fathom why others do not accept it wholeheartedly. Our issue is much the same, I think.
Back to the original question: are death and war bad? I would say yes they are bad at times necessary. It is that distinction that is the crux of our discussion. Were there no death the earth would be horribly overpopulated, with all of us living forever in squalor. Were there no war we would be ruled by unchecked excess. Death and war are, occasionally, necessary, but that does not make them good. Stopping Hitler was totally justified, but that does not make the war any better for those affected by it. That the eventual passing of loved ones is necessary makes it no less painful.
^site isn’t finished yet…
I just wanted to say that I’ve read ‘The Jungle’ and it is definitely one of the most well-written amazing books that I’ve ever read. Really, once you get through the first 100 pages, you absolutely *have* to finish it. Anyway, that’s all I wanted to say…
Left by Brittany on October 8th, 2003
It’s also, so I’m told, the reason my brother in-law became a vegitarian in 4th grade. His whole class did too after the read the book (or excerpts from it, not sure) for a while, but he was the only one that stuck with it. He’s about to graduate high school now and still going strong. Musta put a scare into him.
Left by Jordan on October 9th, 2003
Were there no death the earth would be horribly overpopulated, with all of us living forever in squalor.
Depends on how you mean. If you mean that no one who was alive ever died, then this is false. There are more people alive today than have been alive through all of human history. That is, there are more alive people than dead. Given that, there would be at most 12 billion people, which I think the Earth could support fairly easily.
If instead you assume that people who didn’t die continued to have children for all the years they are alive, then you are probably right.
Left by Matt on October 13th, 2003
>There are more people alive today than have been alive through all of human history.
Who did the math to come up with this one? It doesn’t seem right to me.
Left by David on October 13th, 2003
I know that math has been done with the “more people alive today than have been alive through all of human history” question, though I couldn’t tell you for certain who did it. Remember that until very recently the birthrates in the most marginally survivable areas have been extremely low (now the marginal areas are still able to produce enough food to keep birthrates up, even if they don’t have enough resources to create an economy that can sustain that many people).
If you look at population growth through time, though, it is approaching exponential, so it is feasible to think that more people are alive now than ever, because the number of people alive now are perhaps half an order of magnitude more than the people who have been alive over the last 500 or so years.
Does anyone have a good resource to back up the BS I just spewed?
Left by John on October 13th, 2003
Here’s an interesting website from the census bureau.
Left by Jaime on October 13th, 2003
If you add up the tables just using every 100 years (assuming that people died before they were 100), you get 7677 million, which is higher than the current population of approx 6327 million. So it’s definitely close and probably depends on what numbers you do use.
Left by Jaime on October 13th, 2003
Thanks Jaime, that’s a pretty cool page. It’s certainly close, but I think there’s no doubt that if not now then at least soon that will be true. It’s amazing that there were only 2.5 billion people on Earth in 1950 and now there’s over six. 3.5 billion new people in only half a century. I know that growth rates in the developed world are slowing, but still, that’s a lot of babies.
Left by John on October 13th, 2003
Death is ‘bad’ for the people left behind in that they mourn the loss of a loved one. Death is bad for the dying as they experience pain- but that is, as far as i see it as far as you can go by attempting to identify the ‘badness’ of death. i see nothing bad or sad about a natural painless discontinuation of life for someone who nobody would mourn. the sadness is felt by the living and not the dead. People often get themselves in difficulty by viewing death as an ‘event’ in life which is of course a logical contradiction.
Left by Rosie on January 20th, 2004
Completle agree w/ your point about war and death and the jungle is indeed one of the greatest books ever written it really makes you think.
Left by lexie on July 3rd, 2005