"One argument for a larger population is based on utilitarianism, specifically the version of it that says that what is good is the sum total of happiness across all humans."
Utilitarianism doesn't say that 'good is the sum total of happiness across all humans' but rather it says it's 'the greatest good for the greatest number', which is substantially different, so this is a distortion of the facts. I would refer the author to the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill especially his work Utilitarianism.
"If each additional life adds to the cosmic scoreboard of goodness, then it’s obviously better to have more people (unless they are so miserable that their lives are literally not worth living)."
I can't be bothered to debate population argument in detail again as it always polarizes and ends up in unresolved arguments—except to say the author doesn't seem to have enough understanding about the implications of exponential growth.
The facts are clear even to Blind Freddy that the resources and environmental problems presently being experienced are caused by excessive demands on the planet's resources.
Of course the elephant in the room is the world's population but any serious discussion about that is verboten in the public discourse.
> Utilitarianism doesn't say that 'good is the sum total of happiness across all humans' but rather it says it's 'the greatest good for the greatest number', which is substantially different, so this is a distortion of the facts. I would refer the author to the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill especially his work Utilitarianism.
That's why the author mentions "specifically the version" of utilitarianism which does sum happiness across people (it's called Total Utilitarianism, by contrast with Average Utilitarianism). "The greatest good for the greatest number" is ambiguous, later thinkers have parsed it out in different ways.
Put two philosophers in a room and have them discuss utilitarianism and you'll end up with twenty opinions. Average utilitarianism is just one of its later fallouts. (I needn't tell you how unpopular utilitarianism is with many philosophers and others—especially in this era).
Fact is, the author used the splinter view to further his argument which hasn't worked. Given other weaknesses he would have been better to ignore utilitarianism altogether.
I think your last paragraph sums up the article very well. One question remainins: did the author succeed in convincing himself?
It's a fluff piece based on naming a few patterns that could be used as arguments for more humans, not an exploration of the problem space. For example he does not even mention that one pattern that has accompanied humanity through all of history: population control through war. When it's too crowded for young humans to live like their parents and grandparents did, they are easy to rile up against some other group and then the population level resets.
I'd suggest the answer to the question you posed is likely 'yes'. The points the author raises under More options tells me much about the person he is and I've encountered his type before and they think like that.
As I said I don't see much point in discussing population as much as I'd like to. With the world as it is, it's easy to be disparaging against those who argue for a larger population and that we'll always find or develop more resources but it serves no purpose when those who are in favor hold those views as beliefs rather than having arrived at them objectively.
We shouldn't forget there's long social and religious traditions concerning fecundity and 'go forth and multiply', and these beliefs are deeply ingrained in much of the population. Also, one has to be heartless not to feel very sorry for a grieving couple who've been told by an IVF clinic they can't have any children even if that would benefit the planet. Much of the world's population see the biological urge to multiply as normal and fundamental so it's understandable why those who question the doctrine such as Paul Ehrlich and Jane Goodall have been verbally pilloried over the years. Their message is repugnant even if correct.
That said, we need the discussion and we need to listen to Ehrlich et al but it's not going to happen for reasons stated. What I find most disconcerting and hypocritical are environmentalists and groups like Greenpeace arguing about pollution, limited resources and environmental issues whilst they blatantly ignore the population 'elephant'. When asked why they've been known to say "it's too hot handle, we wouldn't touch it with a barge pole."
I'd like to discuss your point about population control through war as history of warfare is an interest of mine but it's too big to post here.
Utilitarianism doesn't say that 'good is the sum total of happiness across all humans' but rather it says it's 'the greatest good for the greatest number', which is substantially different, so this is a distortion of the facts. I would refer the author to the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill especially his work Utilitarianism.
"If each additional life adds to the cosmic scoreboard of goodness, then it’s obviously better to have more people (unless they are so miserable that their lives are literally not worth living)."
I can't be bothered to debate population argument in detail again as it always polarizes and ends up in unresolved arguments—except to say the author doesn't seem to have enough understanding about the implications of exponential growth.
The facts are clear even to Blind Freddy that the resources and environmental problems presently being experienced are caused by excessive demands on the planet's resources.
Of course the elephant in the room is the world's population but any serious discussion about that is verboten in the public discourse.