Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!yale!husc6!seismo!lll-crg!nike!cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!wlbr!voder!pyramid!decwrl!sun!rdh
From: rdh@sun.uucp (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Population control & Freedom
Message-ID: <7220@sun.uucp>
Date: Fri, 12-Sep-86 19:17:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.7220
Posted: Fri Sep 12 19:17:14 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 15-Sep-86 05:38:20 EDT
References: <3013@watmath.UUCP> <11700397@inmet>
Reply-To: rdh@sun.UUCP (Robert Hartman)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 32

To paraphrase:

>>[janw]
People's right to procreate shouldn't be violated under any circumstances.

>[carnes]
People's demand for a reasonably good quality of life should be respected,
and if necessary, protected by govt. intervention.

The fact is that the overpopulation scenario is a classic example of how
a collection of individuals, each acting independently in his perceived  
(or misperceived as the case may be) best interests, can produce a tragic 
result that affects them all, and that none of them wants.

This is where the "enlightened" aspect of "enlightened self-interest"
should come into play, both on the part of the indiviuals to see the
aggregate situation, and on the part of those making policy to educate,
persuade, reward, and withhold rewards, to effectively influence individual
decisions.

I should think that the goal would be to encourage people to be
satisified with the number of children that they can reasonably expect
to support, and to effectively discourage them from having more than
they can reasonably expected to support.  The operative words here
are "reasonable" and "effective"; there may be a tradeoff between the
two.

BTW, the Constitution guarantees everyone a right to privacy, but I have yet
to see a Constitutional guarantee of a right to have children.  That's my
obligatory little jab at Jan's position, but I won't push it.

-bob.