The ethics of inaction on global warming?

[gwens18a]

Garret Hardin became well known in environmental circles for writing "The Tragedy of the Commons", he also wrote “The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia” In The Ostrich Factor he argues that in order to solve our overpopulation problem we must limit the human birth rate by the use of contraceptives and reduce population by ignoring famine. He claimed the best course of action against famine is no action at all. That we must refrain from supplying food aid to those in need and we must simply allow those who are in regions that are incapable of supporting a human population to simply die off. He states that by supplying aid and not allowing nature to take its course, we will ultimately be increasing suffering for future generations in those areas and that thousands suffering now is far more favourable to millions suffering later.
That’s pretty harsh stuff, and he may be right in a way because it limits suffering that would be inevitable for future generations. Hardin’s idea is to simply allow the evolutionary processes of, survival of the fittest to run its course the way nature intended it to.
Personally I prefer the contraceptive idea more than the idea of allowing large populations to starve to death, but contraceptives don’t do anything for the overpopulation problems we have today.

Do you find Hardin’s solution to overpopulation ethical?

But, what if that famine is of our own making and due to inaction on climate change? Are we ethically bound no matter what to provide food aid to all people of developing nations that are affected by a climate change which was not of their own making?
How ethical is it to cause a famine through inaction on climate change. Is this not worse than simply allowing famine victims to die off if that famine were from natural causes.

http://www.amazon.com/Ostrich-Factor-Our-Population-Myopia/dp/B001M4HZ1K
Wishford, it's funny you should say that because 2003, Hardin 88 and his wife 81 felt they had both contributed all they could to society and rather than become a burden to the planet, they together committed suicide.

 

[Northern Logger]

Population Control is not a new idea. I do not put much stock in Darwin's view, he believed that certain races were inferior and should be allowed to become extinct. Darwin did not believe in slavery yet his writings concluded that other races were inferior, by today's standards we would call him a racist. What is ethical about that kind of thinking? As far as allowing humans to starve to death, I would conclude that kind of behavior is not human at all. I do not agree with hand outs, I do think that those who are hungry should be fed however we need to teach them to work for their food, give them the opportunity to grow and become responsible humans which not only provide for themselves but learn to provide for others. Last we all need to learn there is no value in self indulgence, but real value in self sacrifice.

Edit, I do not agree with Dana on much however on this question I fully agree with him.