Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mmm!cipher
From: cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Population control
Message-ID: <1050@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Aug-86 18:25:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmm.1050
Posted: Sat Aug 23 18:25:51 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 07:28:04 EDT
References: <487@meccts.UUCP> <549@gargoyle.UUCP> <553@gargoyle.UUCP>
Reply-To: cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard)
Distribution: net
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Lines: 151
Xref: watmath net.politics:18606 net.sci:1545 net.philosophy:6581

In article <553@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
>[Marc Campos]
>>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


-- 

  /'C`\	 TWALG ASHALC RITMOHF.			Andre Guirard
 ( o_o )					Botoj de timeco
 )) _ (( AWSWG SWVVG BWSWBSWH!			ihnp4!mmm!cipher
///   \\\