[Osborn F Enready]

Isherwood said: As humans become more plentiful, does the value of the individual diminish?

I think there are several competing ideologies that push that theory, yes.

I think the truth lies in nature itself, and the cold truth is that yes, indeed this is a result because as life becomes more plentiful, the value of life is blemished by the variety that life provides, often that variety being a cause in itself to the formation of collectives based on polarized opposites of values.

I personally, think it is natural for collective societies to consider rational limitation of the individual, but the trend toward authoritarianism that is bred in most societies through patriotism, national identity, cultural values influences us to subjectively over-reach, as a new mother with her first child tends to be over-protective. Add to this technologies ability to influence culture through electronic, printed and live media, and you have a very angry stew that causes polarization and divide based on individual values, forming into collectives which are usually associated with "political parties" or "religious groups".

I think evolution, happiness, productivity and inherant value is a direct equation to the amount of liberty the individual has to become fully realized to their personal aspirations, desires, needs and ability. The most valued societies are those which limit the encroachment of the system of government, into the peoples lives, unless the people seek a resolution to a substantial problem that causes regional unrest.

I think the society that can provide the consistent balance of sticking to core limitations of government over-reach, by securing "natural" individual rights in law, and in cultural values and teachings, while still allowing government to ensure a "level" playing field for all of its citizens both econonmicly and socially, is the goal of societal man, or if not the current goal, should be.
I think that is the true pinnacle of what mankind could reach, and the only realistic proposition that would allow any type of global peace.

Isherwood said: When there were fewer of us, individual contributions to society were of greater significance and more noticeable. An individual could make a difference in their community, in the world.

It is still ONLY individual contributions that do the work. Teams and corporations are made up of talented individuals, and without the individual, there is no team, and no corporation or any ideas or technology.

Isherwood said: Now that humans are so numerous and only show signs of increasing in numbers in the future, are we at risk of making humans worthless?

I think that is a goal of many theories, and the reason that people around the world need to take control of their governments, design new ones to reflect our common threads of individual rights, and limit them to enforcing the laws that secure those rights.

Isherwood said: Can the increase in violent crimes be attributed to more people placing to value on human life? Is war becoming more acceptable because the value of the individual soldier has decreased?

Yes, and Yes.

Some theories argue from the point of finite resources, which leads again to a natural instinct for survival of the fittest, or surivival of those who "think alike" and can secure that vision through military force.

Some theories argue from the point of religious ends, and actually push reality to conform to "beliefs" the individuals hold as core beleifs. The bigger and more well financed the religions base, the more social and political influence it wields indirectly.

Some theories argue from the economic perspective, some the social perspective, some a mixture of both.

Usually all of them hold one promise at their core.....bettering you, the individual, and your place in the world. They do that to gain power, since it is the individuals who form collectives that give the collective its power.

Another thing most of them share, is a subjective view of how limitation of liberty for some individuals,results in more liberty for all.

I think once we remove subjectivity from the view of rights infringement, we will be much better in achieving the next evolution of man, and truly having a global effort toward productive, stable, sustainable peace.

Isherwood said: Finally, does Christianity, along with similar religions, contribute to the devaluation of individuals by portraying humans as essentially evil?

I think the answer is clearly that all religions play a huge role in dividing and polarizing people, who share the same common goals while on earth. This is to me, a perfect example of how when religion is not kept private, to the individual, it becomes a non-beneficial to the society as a whole, since it creates and furthers divide and polarazation based on subjective values and beliefs.

One of my favorite, and in my opinion, most prophetic quotes from a collection I frequent:

“The liberty of the individual is a necessary postulate of human progress.”
-Ernest Renan

I know a little about Renan, and while I don't support everything the man has said or stood for, I feel this could be his most prophetic words ever put to paper, that I have seen.

To me, the true value of the human being lies in the ABILITY, natural ability to conquer the natural world for survival, yet reach a common middle ground with our peers.

I think based on our individual make-up, and our natural progression in life process from "birth collective family", "individual", to the CHOICE of forming a new collective by creating a family, shows we are naturally inclined to both societal (collective) and individual living.

I think the best system is one that recongnizes the indivual fully, by full protection of individual rights, which allows the biggest variety of personal collectives, without infringement from subjective laws or bias, and allows all individuals and collectives to work most efficiently, productively and beneficially to those who make it up.

I think the United States Constitutional Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, strike the closest chord to that ever achieved by man, yet, that I know of, and I also think this is the highest value that could be achieved by government without the use of force being used to try to change mans nature, desires, abilities and happiness.