Population control
Richard Carnes
>But most responsible people do not consider meddling with other
>peoples' lives as a reasonable alternative. It *is* abhorrent to
>interfere with such a personal choice because the individual's right
>to lead his own life is inalienable and self-justifying; it does not
>belong to the state. And unless you can point out solid reasons why
>some peoples' having children directly and forcibly harms other
>people, you don't have a moral case.
But why must having a child (an additional child) DIRECTLY and
FORCIBLY harm other people for there to be any moral justification
for population control through incentives or any form of coercive
control? Why not if it harms others indirectly?
Most libertarians and anarchists agree that an individual's natural
right to lead her own life and do as she pleases stops at the point
where she inflicts harm on others. "Your right to swing your fist
stops at my nose." If I dump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere,
don't the people whom my pollution harms have the right to force me
to put less in the air or to pay for the damage? Or do you take the
position that everyone has the right to pollute the air and water all
they want, without any interference? If everyone does so, then we
have an multiperson Prisoner's Dilemma: each individual has an
incentive to pollute *more* than the optimal amount, and the result
will be a collectively suboptimal amount (excess) of pollution; i.e.,
society as a whole will be suffering greater COSTS from the pollution
than it is receiving BENEFITS from allowing this amount of pollution,
and yet no individual will have an incentive to reduce the amount
pollution he generates, since the individual alone bears the costs of
doing so, while the benefits, even though larger than the costs, are
spread out over the whole society. Obviously, the consequences could
be severe.
There is thus a prima facie case for some sort of enforcement
mechanism that would INTERNALIZE the cost of pollution, e.g., through
taxes equal to the social (total) cost of the pollution (at a given
level) to be paid by the polluter. Then the polluter, to maximize
profit, will reduce his pollution to the collectively optimal amount.
If this is unclear, please see any basic economics textbook.
Now, if it is reasonable to impose a tax on a polluter, why isn't it
reasonable or legitimate to impose a tax or other penalty on a family
that chooses to have an "excess" child, if the *net* effect of excess
children is harmful?
The point is not that we can calculate the exact costs and benefits
of an additional child -- clearly, we can't. The point is that there
is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having
another child, or attempting to change their preferences through
propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer
euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net
harmful effect on other people. After all, that is how we handle
pollution, or should. Or do you have a better plan? Because let's
get one thing straight: the potential consequences of overpopulation
are catastrophic. They could well include the premature deaths of
millions or billions through war, disease, or famine; and the
extinction of large numbers of species, which alone would have severe
consequences for humans. The potential consequences are a *severe*
reduction in the quality and/or length of life for present and future
generations -- we're not talking about reducing the per capita income
by 1% or some other triviality.
The fact must be faced that the individually optimal choice does not,
in general, produce the collectively optimal outcome, except in
certain special circumstances, such as the free market rather
stringently defined. It seems to me that you may have fallen into
the habit of overgeneralizing from the marketplace so familiar to us,
and attributed market characteristics to non-market situations.
There is no *a priori* reason to think that allowing individual
parents to choose the number of their offspring just as they please
will lead to a collectively optimal or even to a non-catastrophic
outcome.
>Since you've already stated that the state has the moral right to
>control the lives of others...
That's clearly not what I said.
> If you concede that the state has the
>right to control a couple's reproductive choices, then it's a small
>step to say that the state has the right to force the issue with an
>abortion or infantcide.
In my opinion there is room for debate as to whether a state may ever
legitimately *require* an abortion, and under what circumstances.
But no population control advocate I know of supports infanticide as
a means of population control, even though infanticide has been
commonly practiced in many historical periods, including in modern
Europe, as a means of "birth" control.
>Your view is not very compatible with a good life for the *present*
>generation of humanity. Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my
>freedom to support ghosts of the future, especially for the dubious
>arguments that you've cited.
Calling the arguments I've presented "dubious" does not answer them,
nor does it answer the arguments in favor of population control
presented by other people in books and articles. You are not being
asked to "give up your freedom", any more than a manufacturer is
being asked to give up his freedom when he is taxed for polluting.
What he loses is his freedom to pollute as much as he likes without
paying for it, and you are being asked to give up the freedom to have
as many children as you want, at least in some circumstances, without
paying some sort of price for it.
>Such population gloom-and-doom
>scenarios neglect the facts that people tend to reproduce *less* as
>their standard of living increases...
This is known as the "demographic transition" and, far from being
neglected, is well known to everyone who has even a casual knowledge
of human population studies. If you wish to argue that the
demographic transition will keep the earth from being overpopulated,
(as Dr. Ruth would say if she heard that you were using
contraceptives) terrrific. So let's hear your argument.
>that the Earth still has plenty of resources and can feed its
>inhabitants,
Did you read the latter half of my article, in which I quoted the
Ehrlichs to the effect that humanity is using up its "capital" and
degrading its sources of income? If you're going to respond to my
articles, please at least address the points I make, don't simply
ignore them. Of course the earth still has plenty of resources, but
it is not feeding its inhabitants now, although perhaps it "can". At
any rate the question is what will happen in the future, not just
what is the situation right now.
>and that this is not the only place to live in the universe.
Again, what is your plan? How many will go and when? First, it is
simply false that the possibility of emigration to other planets has
been neglected by "gloom-and-doomers", and second, you are merely
waving your hand and saying that emigration will solve the
overpopulation problem. Give me some numbers. Perhaps your
great-grandfather was on the Titanic, telling everyone, "Relax, there
are other ships out there somewhere".
Again, if anyone replies, please send a copy by email if you want to
make sure that I read it. Thank you.
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
Andre Guirard
--
/'C`\ TWALG ASHALC RITMOHF. Andre Guirard
( o_o ) Botoj de timeco
)) _ (( AWSWG SWVVG BWSWBSWH! ihnp4!mmm!cipher
/// \\\