Population control: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Population control » Population control

Population control
Mayer wants to pay people not to breed

Page: 1 2

Population control

paleorchid13
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 20

Posted 10/30/09 - 06:52 PM: Subject: Population control	#1
AN outspoken Kiwi politician has proposed a new solution to the country's child abuse problem - pay the "appalling underclass" not to breed. This statement isn't exactly the focus of my in inquiry, however it is not breaking news that population has come under the watchful eye and implications of many governmental bodies and propaganda. My question is, under what circumstances would population control become unethical? Offering money to people to take birth control or not to breed in my mind, doesn't seem unethical in any way, after all it is not a choice that is forced, and considering that about half of all pregnancies are unplanned, I would find some financial incentive quite effective. Now let's take it to another level... If our population is exceeding our natural resource capabilities, or willingness to do with less, does our right to autonomy get compromised? I have the right to whatever I want with my body, but I can use my body to murder someone, rape someone and impose on people many immoral things; if I want to use my body to procreate another child that will use up more resources in a situation where resources are limited; isn't it my moral obligation to sacrifice my portion of my own resources instead of making society do it? Would this be a fair legislation, ethically speaking? And taking it a bit further ... Technology is advancing; we are capable of extending life for along time; if this were to advance to the point of everyday medicine, population would become a real problem ... would it be wrong to ask people to choose an expiration date, in exchange for bringing another life into the world? Edited by unenlightened on 11/02/09 - 04:22 AM. Reason: spacing, punctuation.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 103
Total Posts: 2542

Posted 10/31/09 - 07:08 AM:	#2
The segregation of populace on the basis of age is apparently not discriminatory... merely illegal to accept equality to a being here upon this earth after you were.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3285

Posted 10/31/09 - 11:01 PM:	#3
I don't think you have the right to do whatever you want with your body. Society currently places a lot of restrictions on what you do to your body. You currently aren't allowed to end your own life, take a range of drugs or sell us of your body for sex in many areas. I believe the politician suggested paying people for voluntary sterilization. It would be economically advantageous to both the recipient of the money and to the state. I think the people of New Zealand are a bit more sensitive to the issues of the impact of populations on resources. The question of personal obligation makes it sound like a black-and-white issue. Levels of obligation seem to be dependent on social values. A society with a lot of personal freedom feels very little responsibility toward society as a whole. With more social controls, there is more social obligation.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

mutemaler
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2006

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 646

Posted 11/01/09 - 04:31 AM:	#4
paleorchid13 wrote: ... Technology is advancing, we are capable of extending life for along time, if this were to advance to the point of everyday medicine,population would become a real problem ......would it be wrong to ask people to choose an expiration date, in exchange for bringing another life into the world? I don't think anything is inherently immoral, what I see more is the dominant moralities of the culture and/or entities of which I am part and therefore obliged to largely follow. In this case there aren't even any 'natural' feelings against it, I guess my feeling is just that it is an interesting experiment to watch and to learn from, that it might work and might not work, but there is nothing against trying it out - because theories mean very little, you simply have to try things. What I do notice is that claims of of immorality of often used as a kind cross-cultural propoganda, China comes to mind. When the political climate says you want to put China under pressure (for other reasons), then you trot out the good old Human Rights Doctrine, say, "oh, they are SO immoral", so "totalitarian", they "kill babies", they "torture religious people", and the like (fully blind to the own hypocrisy in this). So its one of those things which are dealing with loaded words is all I am saying, its a great way to inflame passions with, create public opinion. As to the question above: It sounds like a way to arrive at a sustainable population and then keep it at the number. Theory good, in the practice who knows, although in this case I do get an uneasy feeling from the idea. Personally I think a good experiment would be something along the lines of generation houses (instead of the single family as unit), community houses. Only a few give birth, but all care for the children as well as those older (who are also allowed to die there). Where the children are a literally a common good, also little if any property. Build something up around the idea of the commons. The advantage in a population control sense seems obvious, since people share in parenting anyway, they would not be this feeling of being "denied the right" to a child. And you do not need to rely on the "own" children for your security in old age, this is handled by your community, and in a sense ALL of the children are there for you anyway - you live under the same roof after all.

ciceronianus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 982

Last Blog: In Praise of "In Praise of Doubt"

Posted 11/01/09 - 04:46 AM:	#5
Logan's Run was rather fun, now that you mention it. We can always fool them into dying, if necessary. Renew!
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Invictus_88
New Arrival

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Location: England,

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133

Posted 11/01/09 - 06:13 AM:	#6
Because, of course, it is the mushrooming population of New Zealand which is causing demographic strain in the world.

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1326

Posted 11/01/09 - 09:40 AM:	#7
Paleorchid wrote: AN outspoken Kiwi politician has proposed a new solution to the country's child abuse problem - pay the "appalling underclass" not to breed. I guess this is at least better for the political party than Gandhi's method, sending the army out to pick up and sterilize them, even if not as cost efficient. But as with all ideas of this type the implementation could be a problem. They would have to set up some sort of police to make sure that the people were following the rules and a system of punishment for those that don't. I think that it would end up being quite a lot of work.
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Desidude666
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 17, 2007
Location: Singapore

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 273

Posted 11/01/09 - 11:32 PM:	#8
SIR2U wrote: I guess this is at least better for the political party than Gandhi's method, sending the army out to pick up and sterilize them, even if not as cost efficient. You mean MK Gandhi? If you mean him, just to remind you that the Indians didn't have an Army when he was alive. After he was shot they then created the Indian state. If you mean the latter 'Gandhis' well, they aren't 'Gandhis'. The 'real' Gandhis aren't politicians, the fake 'Gandhis' (aka "Sonia" et al.) have hijacked his name for political purposes.
What you are, you are by accident of birth; what I am, I am by myself. There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven. - Ludwig van Beethoven

SIR2U
The Wonderor of Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 1326

Posted 11/02/09 - 06:38 PM:	#9
desidude666 wrote: You mean MK Gandhi? No I don't mean him. desidude666 wrote: the fake 'Gandhis' (aka "Sonia" et al. No, I don't mean them either. Time for a history lesson. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~smlevoua...website/Sterilization.html
Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

spock
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 11/02/09 - 07:27 PM:	#10
I think it is perfectly acceptable to sterilize people. While its not politically correct, I thinnk that some people do have better genes than others. If only these people have kids it could make humananity healthier. If people want kids just to have familly then it would be supressing the human need for companionship. Sending out an army to sterilize people would be saying certain humans are not worthy of passing on their traits(or being human?). What if caucausians had less disease prone genes than asians or africans? Would that be considered genocide?

Page: 1 2

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