Is Population Control Ethical?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Is Population Control Ethical? » Is Population Control Ethical?

Is Population Control Ethical?

Page: 1 2 3

Is Population Control Ethical?

reincarnated
the moving finger writes

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Location: on the road to Samarkand

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 2145

Posted 11/04/09 - 09:26 AM:	#11
jsidelko wrote: These rewards could even be doubled for low IQ people. and even quadrupled for people who don't have blonde hair and blue eyes! Heil..... ummmm, whatsisname?
crumpled bits of paper, filled with imperfect thoughts... we all talk a different language, talking in defence... and if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be ok... (Mike & The Mechanics, "The Living Years")

BitterCrank
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 226

Posted 11/04/09 - 07:08 PM:	#12
Belgarath wrote: I read a post earlier and a few gems that caught my attention appeared. Obviously the title is one of those gems. What do you think people? Personally, I do not see it as unethical. On the other hand, if a country does not have population control and then decides it is going to slam it down peoples throats without the slightest say, then I would see that as unethical. Anybodies dream of so many children above the limit will be ruined on the spot. And so on. I would argue that the worst ethical choice is FAILING TO CONTROL POPULATION GROWTH. Look, no matter how you distribute the goods, the resources of the earth are finite. Food scarcity is not universal, but it is a present reality for maybe a quarter of the world's people fairly frequently. There are NO large masses of land waiting to go into cultivation that are not already being farmed. The annual catch of fish is declining. Many species (like cod) have crashed and appear unable to recover in the near future. Fish that were once shunned as trash are now featured on the menu. (We are working our way down the barrel, and the bottom is in sight.) Fresh water resources are now, and always have been, small. Most of the world's water can not be scooped up and swallowed. Too salty, or (our fault) too dirty. There is every indication that fresh water supplies will continue to get tighter. The CO2 problem involves population as critically as food. In this case, though, controlling the population in industrialized countries (like the United States, Japan, Europe) and countries that are industrializing (China, Brazil, India) it is especially important. Every new child in the United States consumes a very disproportionate share of resources and produces a very disproportionate share of CO2. So, if it is ethical to preserve as many species as possible, including our species; if it is ethical to offer as good a life for the children of humans as we can; if it is ethical to preserve our planet home for the processes of life that have brought us thus far; then it is ethical to limit the number of babies that are conceived and born year by year. How should births be limited? Population control can not be left to individuals. It must be universal and global. Maintaining population levels is not enough: the population must actually shrink if we are to survive. 1. One baby per couple (If the one baby dies and the couple can still conceive, they may replace that baby). 2. Cease assisting the infertile to bear children (mostly a problem in industrialized countries). 3. Allow all effective birth control strategies: condoms combined with birth control pills; abortion on demand; surgical interventions for both men and women. 4. Increase the social value of the single allowed child. Sanctions should apply to those who decide to bear and keep more than one child. These sanctions need to be harsh enough to motivate compliance with birth control: At least loss of certain important social privileges; possibly loss of the child (surrendering the child at birth for adoption by infertile couples). Fines and tax penalties could also be used. If population can not be controlled with this regime, then more severe methods would need to be used such as allowing reproduction by lottery. However, we may not need to worry about this unpleasant possibility. If we don't get our act together, we will pass the point of no-return on global warming and we can kiss our collective asses good bye.
If you won't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

toasty
Completely Hopeless

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 04, 2009
Location: NC

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 11/04/09 - 08:50 PM:	#13
Someone sounds like Hu Jintao.
You may see that the glass as half-empty, or half full; I see that the cup is twice as big as it needs to be. -toasty

Ionakani
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 8

Posted 11/09/09 - 12:15 PM:	#14
Population control isn't really necessary, is it? does not economic conditions limit the amount of children that one can provide for? does not disease and war kill enough of us? There's plenty of room and supply for us, we're just not using it

Laic
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 07, 2009
Location: Northern Ontario

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 37

Posted 11/09/09 - 03:51 PM:	#15
Ionakani wrote: Population control isn't really necessary, is it? does not economic conditions limit the amount of children that one can provide for? does not disease and war kill enough of us? There's plenty of room and supply for us, we're just not using it No economic conditions do not. Even in the worst cases of poverty people still breed. It's not the ideal world you might live in. Low income families get more income to support children then people who work do. That's why I don't have a job. I make more on assistance and if I had another kid I could move into a four bedroom subsidized townhouse that would only cost me $200 a month + lights while working families get less time to spend with their children and have more bills to pay. Economic conditions are ripe for breeding coupled with unemployment! Disease and war don't kill nearly enough people to make world leaders stop inflicting them upon us so no. Maybe just enough. That's why we have them I'm thinking. There isn't any room or supply for what humans have become. The earth itself is going to shrug us off like a bad case of the flu one day because of the way we act. Population control won't do it. Population CONTROL will. It's not about controlling the quantity of humans, it's the quality. Make better humans so that humans don't do really stupid things like having babies when they live in a shack or on the street. Better humans who would create a better world where no one is in a shack or on the street but that does not go against the will of nature. We could do it. But the ones in charge like money etc. Too bad.
If life is like a box of chocolates than Science and Philosophy are the insert card that let's you know what you're going to get. Read it wisely! ~Me

Decagonian
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 04, 2009

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 30

Posted 11/09/09 - 05:09 PM:	#16
Consider the repercussions of ten million non contributive human beings wasting space throughout any given area. The rate of population increase will be substantial. It's really a matter of the functionality of a country; if we have a simple limit, it's for the people's benefits. We wouldn't exclude reproduction, but rather limit it based on statistical evidence of how much longer we can maintain the population.
"It seems I've died." "Not to worry, we've buttons for that these days." "Ohoho, how convenient." -Kieran

longfun
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 04, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/10/09 - 05:19 AM:	#17
atightropewalker wrote: longfun wrote: the idea of a state interfering with your own personal constitution.... It would irreversably mean that the state can use you in any way to make sure you can be as productive as possible, meaning your state would be supporting space flight, even sacrifice people for the greater good, which in this case is productivity/procreation. that would eventually solve your second point : a state inherently unfair trapping many people in one-birth plicy or people control But what if politics can't or doesn't want to make that choice, you as farmer are trapped and will adapt your ethics accordingly And I'm not mentioning the many unethical events that will happen to reach this flight into space goal either. If you as farmer can't choose a, you will choose b or a b+ as the strength of the argument of the minority against the majority will influence you to do so. I firstly want to make clear that I don't want such a state. So if a state can interfere with your personal constitution then the state can use you in any way? We assume the greater good is productivity/procreation? But these are not exclusively linked. Too much procreation and productivity can drop for a number of reasons. So we assume the state wants more procreation? In which case there presumably isn't a one-child policy? So if you are in a state with a one-child policy would you change your ethics accordingly? Some may but many ethics are not based on the decisions of my state - nor did I even consider my states stance in many cases. Now I know in many much-less liberal states (as I see it) there isn't the same freedom of ethics but that does not mean people do not object. Nor does it make the will of the majority or minority ethically acceptable. For this imaginary state to achieve space flight will come at great cost? As will the other results of such a state presumably? Am I to assume that a state without such interfering policies wont make the great cost to achieve these things so won't achieve them? In any case in this imaginary state if people can't choose an ethic that fits that of the state then they will choose another based on the arguments of the minority against the majority? This as I said may be true but I don't think most people choose their ethcis acoording to majority or minority favoring. I do realize I was a bit unclear on the last sentence but I mean the state as I see it will proceed with the majority (whatever that may be) unless the minority can provide a strong enough argument. Do I think it fair that we are essentially trapped in our respective states (nations)? To have things forced upon you that you don't agree just because your are in the borders whereas if you could go elsewhere it isn't so. Not really. Outside such a state you can still assume that spaceflight will happen but only for the wealthy few, and not as procreative expanding goal, but rather as an entertainment and at cost of the lowest levels. Or as in our world a mixture of several different states. You probably also noticed that ethics and morals change according to levels and standings and regions...In that light, the Indian caste system wasn't that stupid (debatable) as the lowest caste will still think that they do it for a greater cause, and simple social intolerance will keep the structure in tact.
I'm Long and I'm playing the greatest game of all.

Dragohunter
illusion is persistent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009
Location: Why does it matteR?

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 166

Posted 11/10/09 - 10:26 AM:	#18
Ionakani wrote: Population control isn't really necessary, is it? does not economic conditions limit the amount of children that one can provide for? does not disease and war kill enough of us? There's plenty of room and supply for us, we're just not using it (Statistics from CIA) By year 2600, if the exponential human population growth remains the same, people would need to stand next each other shoulder to shoulder in order for the land mass to contain our population. The Earth would appear red hot from space from the result of excessive energy use. Ocean pollution from 2000-2004 requires 500,000 years to recover to the initial state by natural means.
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal." - Albert Einstein

Geospiza
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 68

Posted 11/10/09 - 06:54 PM:	#19
I would want to know more about the population demographics and the proposed regime of population control before deciding whether it is ethical or not. For example, a regime of coerced sterilization would be unethical, but a "birth tax" might be agreeable to me under the right demographic circumstances.

Laic
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 07, 2009
Location: Northern Ontario

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 37

Posted 11/10/09 - 10:14 PM:	#20
"birth tax"? People get money given to them for having children. Any tax you could put on people for having kids would take food out of the mouths of children and into the pockets of politicians. You do realize how unsound that idea is? I get "Child Tax" CREDITS. I get Paid extra money to support my children. When a child is born the family goes into debt anyways. Have you priced cribs at all? You don't want to know how much strollers cost either. Luckily there are charities that help cover those costs and if there were an "Birth Tax" no doubt those charities would be there to pick up the tab, further limiting the other services they would provide.
If life is like a box of chocolates than Science and Philosophy are the insert card that let's you know what you're going to get. Read it wisely! ~Me

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.