This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How overpopulated would the world have to get before it would be ethical to legislate family size?
According to the U.N. the world will acquire another 2.6 billion people in only forty years time. Many scientists and other agencies say that water, food production, and pollution will by then, have reached a critical scale worldwide if we do not find ways to stabilise human population figures. Sir David Attenborough heads the Optimum Population Trust which advocates small families and negative population growth, but it is a highly controversial issue for some religious groups and many individuals.
Given the taboo around discussing this most personal of all decisions, the size of our families, how can we address the problem of population growth and is it ethical to do so, whatever the consequences?
Joanne Donovan 30+
russell lester
russell lester
I have dreams, drems I am sure will only serve to substain my hopoe my belief that most people who when passing a river and seeing a child drowning would leap in at risk to themselves rather than run for help while the child dies. Much love to you, By the way My wife and I have hade only one child my sister and her husband 0 so theres 4 that made 1 for you ....
russell lester
Joanne Donovan 30+
I don't think our 'eggs are hopelessly" rotten', as you say, I have more faith in us than that. We can fix this. Awareness is the first step.
russell lester
choose to opt out for their child.
After all in Wales a new law allows the automatic harvesting of organs for transplant anyone who dies without the family having to concent and denying the family any legal recourse in case of disagreement, the peron themselves(obviously while alive) would have to activly opt out or be automatically spare parts. If its Ethical to recycle people to make others last longer then how can it not be ethical to manage the rate of population
Joanne Donovan 30+
My thoughts, lay along the lines of incentives in the first instance. Tax breaks for those who opt for smaller families, tax penalties for those who do not, with exclusions for people who may need extra help on the land, or minority groups.
In countries like India, I thought Indira Ghandi's system of offering incentives had quite a bit to recommend it until her son Sanjay got involved and began to sterilise people forcibly.
If a law is too draconian, people will resist it with their heart and soul, don't you think? I also think if a state gets away with implementing something like that, without resistance or minimal resistance, it may seem to offer a green light to erode other human rights further in the name of 'common good'.
What do you think? When is the point of no return when all measures would be acceptable?
Secondly, given that economic growth is dependent on an increasing consumer base, how would negative economic growth impact economically?
Bob OConnor
It is obvious that the world cannot support the number of people that it has now. As mentioned in one book, the world could support about one to one and a half billion people at the level that Americans now enjoy. It should be obvious to all that our unemployment rate is attributable to: too many people who are educationally unprepared to work them the highly technological world of today. Robots and computers do the work that our parents did. China is doing a good job in terms of education and reducing population. Its economic success is evidence. We might even wonder if its handling of dissidents, although frowned on by us, is not aiding their economic success. The question of course is whether freedom of expression and the action of dissidents runs counter to economic success and possibly to societal safety.
Joanne Donovan 30+
I would like to comment on this 'China is doing a good job in terms of education and reducing population. Its economic success is evidence. We might even wonder if its handling of dissidents, although frowned on by us, is not aiding their economic success. The question of course is whether freedom of expression and the action of dissidents runs counter to economic success and possibly to societal safety.' As you raise the point that as soon as crisis becomes inevitable, human rights seem to go out the window.
My question is, can we avoid this? I would like to think so. Preparation, planning, forethought. History teaches us we are not particularily good at that. What do you think?
David Hamilton 20+
Verble Gherulous 20+
I think that it would be ethical for a government to legislate family size when the population density exceeds the ability for resources to provide adequate sustenance for the population. Hopefully they would have the foresight to do that beforehand.
However, I do not in any way advocate draconian measures (e.g.forced abortions), but rather, items such as credits for withholding size, education on benefits of limiting size, encouraging adoption to natural birth, better access to voluntary sterilization, etc. I know these might be touchy subjects, but they are just meant to be ideas to help encourage population limitation.
Yes, I know that this all encroaches on the whole sense of personal freedom, and that many people especially in the US are loathe to have the government involved in family matters, but world resources are already becoming limited and we're already talking about wars for water within the next generation, so I think it behooves all people, not just governments, seriously to consider how to limit population growth.
Joanne Donovan 30+
I agree with you here too, Verble, we need to encourage adoption and to build bridges to make international adoption easier too.
David Hamilton 20+
Warehouse and solar farming could easily improve our ability to feed people as well, but the key to overpopulation lies in the stars... You know what the best way to feed an extra few billion people next generation is? Spend a few trillion on NASA now. The earth's not going to be here forever, why wait till the sun burns out, or it's unihabitable to leave.
Biosphere 3! Plan for mars, mine asteroids and moons... The cure to overpopulation, is innovation. One should naturally grow from the other.
Joanne Donovan 30+
I believe this invisible hand thing is a mythology invented by the greedy to allow them carte blanche to exploit others. But I definately don't want to beat that old drum along this thread unless someone forces me (Tim?). Sorry but I can't let the invisible hand take credit for too much, except pure selfishness.
You are right about technology being the most important tool we have to deal with these issues but even technology can't replace an extinct biodiverse ecosystem, or the primary building blocks such as metals etc.
Regarding invading outer space, I wonder if we will have the energy reserves/fossil fuels/ uranium to embark on those kind of activities? Instead, think it might have to come down to good old fashioned conservation and careful management of existing reserves, though that does not have to be as boring and dire as it sounds does it?
Comment deleted
Joanne Donovan 30+
Tim Colgan 50+
Joanne Donovan 30+
The only two countries who have attempted to legislate for birthcontrol are, as far as I am aware, India and China. Of course India used (after Sanjay Ghandi came on board) a forcible approach and China has used a mix of force and education. In the state of Kerala population has been stabilised naturally through elevating the status of women, education, healthcare and birthcontrol and I just need to emphasise this one again, education!
My approach would not be forcible of course, but it would involve education, healthcare, awareness and free access to birthcontrol. It seems true that when women are wealthier and educated they and their partners tend to choose small families anyway.
Of course I have to take issue with this comment; 'Many countries of the “west” have achieved it through the self-regulating nature of market economies.' as I believe that it has been state funded education, the woman's right to vote, health education, and the rise of the middle class through the labour laws put in place in the fifties, (in N.Z), which have achieved a more stable population growth and all the other benefits of a balanced, humane society.
What do you think Tim?
Tim Colgan 50+
Totally agree that education is one key factor.
The “elevation of the status of woman” is an interesting topic to address in that it seems a bit of a chicken/egg issue. It seems that when women’s economic value increases (that is their ability to generate income) then their status increases. But not the other way around. So if we wish to increase the status of women, it seems the most effective approach is to generate a system where their labor value heightens. What do you think?
And concerning my comments on self-regulating systems. I’m not trying to say that laissez-faire capitalism is the best approach. Merely that if we decide to tweak the system, it should involve minimal bureaucratic decision making and rather simple rules-based mechanisms to implement control. For example, a national health insurance system (where providers are independent) might make more sense than a centralized health care bureaucracy. Does that make sense?
Joanne Donovan 30+
There would be nothing stopping a company from declaring insolvency to avoid paying people what is rightfully theirs when the time comes. Or what happend in N.Z because they do not guarantee the pension, the govt have made a practice of spending the pension money then blaming it on the previous incumbent. My parents paid huge taxes toward their pensions in the 80's and then oneday someone told them 'sorry its gone'. We need to add more accountability into our system, through a guarantee programme.
I agree with you re size of buearacracy, to me, as a business person, that is just about system design.
With the British and German systems, this part of taxation is paid separately, managed separately, invested safely and protected under government guarantee. Of course healthier people and rising costs, have still put pressure on this system, but it is much better and more sustainable than anything else.
Re the chicken and the egg regarding women's issues: You make a valid point. The elevation of women's status could be seen as a result of labourforce value, and I can think of other examples, that you could use to support that idea, such as how their role changed through the second world war period and the subsequent emancipation that followed.
However, I can also think of many other societies where women are the major labour force and earn most of the bread, but are still horribly undervalued and repressed. I think therefore, it is not specifically tied to labour value, but the issue really boils down to education, and empowerment through education. That is the first step toward emancipation.
Krisztián Pintér 100+
M@ Dunlap
Joanne Donovan 30+