Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!caip!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sci Subject: Re: Population control Message-ID: <26500045@inmet> Date: Mon, 25-Aug-86 14:18:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.26500045 Posted: Mon Aug 25 14:18:00 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Aug-86 20:05:00 EDT References: <543@gargoyle.UUCP> Lines: 173 Nf-ID: #R:gargoyle.UUCP:-54300:inmet:26500045:000:7648 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Aug 25 14:18:00 1986 [carnes@gargoyle.UUCP ] >But why must having a child (an additional child) DIRECTLY and >FORCIBLY harm other people for there to be any moral justifica- >tion for population control through incentives or any form of >coercive control? Why not if it harms others indirectly? *Harm* is an ambiguous word in this context. E.g., a new competitor appears in an industry. Does it "harm" existing firms? Does it owe them anything? A journalist catches a politician in a distortion of fact, reducing his reputation. Any harm done? Yes. Any wrong done? No. One owes something to others when one violates their rights, not when one merely acts contrary to their interests. >If I dump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, don't the peo- >ple whom my pollution harms have the right to force me to put >less in the air or to pay for the damage? Yes. Air belongs to everyone, and everyone pollutes it (with CO2 at least). If someone pollutes more than his share, paying is an equitable solution. >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* ef- >fect of excess children is harmful? Not in the least analogous. Resourses are either owned or in common use. The claim of all people on *common* resourses is equal (at least I see no basis for discrimination). A child's claim on the resourses her parents *own* is nobody else's business. Now consider common resourses, like air. Yes, the child breathes extra air, compared to what her family inhaled before she was born. But the family's equitable share of air has grown, too. The child has as much claim to the air as anyone else. Thus, *even* assuming that everyone is worse off now, no one's rights have been infringed upon, and the new parents owe no one any restitution. Not that there is any reason to believe that the more people, the worse off everyone is. People *produce* as well as consume. And they produce "natural resourses", too. That is, they discover them and find a use for them. What were the known oil reserves 300 years ago? What were they worth? They've grown from, approx- imately, zero, to the present value, and keep growing. How badly did the depletion of *buffaloes* affect the meat consumption in North America? What about *flint* depletion, at least arrowhead quality flint ? Population is a *resourse*, and the new parents do everyone a favor. >The point is not that we can calculate the exact costs and bene- >fits of an additional child -- clearly, we can't. The point is >that there is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents >for having another child, Really? How do you see it? A fine? Then the right to have children is for the wealthy? You see no moral problem here? What if poor parents can't pay your fine? Imprison them? What of the child, and their other children? >or attempting to change their preferences through propaganda (or >public-interest advertising, if you prefer euphemisms), if an ex- >tra child (directly or indirectly) has a net harmful effect on >other people. After all, that is how we handle pollution, or >should. You see no problem with tax-funded propaganda on controversial, partisan issues? Would you approve "Vote Republican" on PBS? >Or do you have a better plan? Because let's get one thing >straight: the potential consequences of overpopulation are catas- >trophic. 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 conse- >quences 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. All these were widely predicted in the 60's for the 70's and the 80's. The above is full of "potential", "could" and "would". One could just as easily draw a scenario in which too *few* people would prove perilous. E.g., a new virus killing off everyone but bearers of a rare immunity trait. The more people, the more chance that a viable remnant survives. >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. There is even less reason to think that "collectively" - i.e., governmentally - made choices for individuals will lead to a non-catastrophic outcome. And making the choice is not enough: the implementation will be distorted by all the inevitable friction, resistance, coercion, concealment, political pressure. By even bringing the issue into the political sphere you ensure that the arguments will be infested with partisanship and influenced by special interests. [Mark Campos] >>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. It is implicit in what you are saying. You are discussing *particulars* of state running people's lives (e.g. penalizing them for getting pregnant); the general moral right you take for granted. >> 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. There is? Not at least between pro-lifers and pro-choicers... you've managed to unite them. >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. Since you don't formulate any principle limiting what the state can do, the fact that certain actions are not currently in vogue in a certain coterie, is cold comfort. The logic of your argument is that the decision must be determined by someone's scenarios of distant collective outcome, not by any rigid inalienable rights here and now. They may not advocate infanticide now - what if other measures fail, and mothers keep sneaking through pregnancy and birth? >>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. They've been answered by consistent failure of their predictions. >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. In your top paragraph you speak of incentives *or* coercive con- trol. By not drawing any new line beyond which freedom will not be infringed on, while crossing existing lines, you are sacrific- ing *all* freedom. Jan Wasilewsky