ruby sparks
Contributor
So, I've been engaged in a lively debate elsewhere about how the topic of population relates to the wider issue of climate change.
As part of that, I came across the paper below, written by a philosopher (I believe).
Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change
https://www.npr.org/documents/2016/jun/population_engineering.pdf
And so I thought it might be interesting to discuss the topic in a philosophical (specifically moral) context.
The writer identifies a spectrum of measures:
A typical example of measures at the left side might be voluntary Family Planning policies such as promoting and increasing access to contraception and allowing/facilitating safer abortion, etc.
Allowing voluntary euthanasia (and even perhaps decriminalising suicide) might also figure, though some may feel these would belong further to the right.
Somewhere nearer the middle (but arguably still mostly on the left side) might be media (such as advertisements) promoting the benefits of having smaller families and the merits and social acceptability of remaining childless by choice. This could be called 'preference adjustment'. It could vary in strength. It could merely be about presenting unconsidered options or it could be more about persuasion and trying to change mindsets and culture and bring them up to date in light of non-evolved societal and global changes. It has been used in certain countries at certain times.
Somewhere near the middle might be natalist-neutral policies, which might involve not having pro-natalist policies such as blanket incentives (eg tax breaks) for having children. Many voluntarily childless people are highlighting this issue.
Moving right, we might have actual incentives (financial or otherwise) for not having children (or as they more usually have involved, not having more children).
On the right we might have forced sterilisation for example. Or laws against having children, for only having one child, or having more than one.
We could probably go even further right and include the option of culling.
So my questions are, where do posters, philosophically and morally, feel it is appropriate to draw the line, at this time. And could anyone ever envisage moving their line to the right if the situation ever became even more urgent than it already arguably is? And when if ever does the downside for humans (and perhaps all living things on the planet) generally start to outweigh the needs, concerns and rights of individual humans, or should the latter always have priority?
It could be said that the OP is in some ways hypothetical, as philosophy often is, but the last two questions are to some extent more hypothetical, since they might describe situations which might not arise, if, for example, other measures to counter climate change were to rapidly progress and this resulted in us at least mitigating the worst aspects of the disaster that may be ahead, or if the lower estimates of future world population come to pass.
I am obviously not intending to overstate the role of population. For the record, I do not believe it offers the main or only avenue for solutions. The greatest opportunity has to do with decreasing CO2 emissions, and although population plays a part in this (sometimes understated or at least under-researched, it seems to me lately*), ending a reliance on fossil fuels or other measures to reduce carbon footprints per capita would imo make a greater difference. Other measures may also be useful, such as ending or reducing deforestation, increasing reforestation, improving agricultural practices (eg promoting conservation tillage) and developing non-natural carbon sequestration.
Measures which indirectly affect population growth could also be relevant, including measures which might have population growth reduction as a side effect, bonus or byproduct.
I am also happy to have the survival of other animals and other living things included in a list of valid concerns, because morally, we don't necessarily need to be entirely anthropocentric.
Finally, in my opinion, it is relevant to not only consider global environmental catastrophe and survival of the (our) species, but also general issues which relate to quality of life.
* If correct, I am not sure why this might be the case. One factor may have to do with earlier forebodings about overpopulation not coming to pass having given population growth policies a bad name. Ditto for cases where such policies were misused. Fear of a slippery slope into misuse generally might play a valid part. Another (I'm guessing) might be that we, and especially those wielding economic power, might prefer the agenda to be about technological innovations (in a globally consumerist culture predicated on economic growth and short-termism, there may be perceived to be more incentives, and people these days do love technology). Nationalism may also impinge, which might involve individual governments not wanting to promote reductions in their own populations (this could include fears about immigration). Similarly for the traditional impulses of religions and other 'tribal' groupings. Also, it seems at least some consider human reproductive rights to trump almost anything else. As someone said, 'people want to have babies'.
As part of that, I came across the paper below, written by a philosopher (I believe).
Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change
https://www.npr.org/documents/2016/jun/population_engineering.pdf
And so I thought it might be interesting to discuss the topic in a philosophical (specifically moral) context.
The writer identifies a spectrum of measures:
A typical example of measures at the left side might be voluntary Family Planning policies such as promoting and increasing access to contraception and allowing/facilitating safer abortion, etc.
Allowing voluntary euthanasia (and even perhaps decriminalising suicide) might also figure, though some may feel these would belong further to the right.
Somewhere nearer the middle (but arguably still mostly on the left side) might be media (such as advertisements) promoting the benefits of having smaller families and the merits and social acceptability of remaining childless by choice. This could be called 'preference adjustment'. It could vary in strength. It could merely be about presenting unconsidered options or it could be more about persuasion and trying to change mindsets and culture and bring them up to date in light of non-evolved societal and global changes. It has been used in certain countries at certain times.
Somewhere near the middle might be natalist-neutral policies, which might involve not having pro-natalist policies such as blanket incentives (eg tax breaks) for having children. Many voluntarily childless people are highlighting this issue.
Moving right, we might have actual incentives (financial or otherwise) for not having children (or as they more usually have involved, not having more children).
On the right we might have forced sterilisation for example. Or laws against having children, for only having one child, or having more than one.
We could probably go even further right and include the option of culling.
So my questions are, where do posters, philosophically and morally, feel it is appropriate to draw the line, at this time. And could anyone ever envisage moving their line to the right if the situation ever became even more urgent than it already arguably is? And when if ever does the downside for humans (and perhaps all living things on the planet) generally start to outweigh the needs, concerns and rights of individual humans, or should the latter always have priority?
It could be said that the OP is in some ways hypothetical, as philosophy often is, but the last two questions are to some extent more hypothetical, since they might describe situations which might not arise, if, for example, other measures to counter climate change were to rapidly progress and this resulted in us at least mitigating the worst aspects of the disaster that may be ahead, or if the lower estimates of future world population come to pass.
I am obviously not intending to overstate the role of population. For the record, I do not believe it offers the main or only avenue for solutions. The greatest opportunity has to do with decreasing CO2 emissions, and although population plays a part in this (sometimes understated or at least under-researched, it seems to me lately*), ending a reliance on fossil fuels or other measures to reduce carbon footprints per capita would imo make a greater difference. Other measures may also be useful, such as ending or reducing deforestation, increasing reforestation, improving agricultural practices (eg promoting conservation tillage) and developing non-natural carbon sequestration.
Measures which indirectly affect population growth could also be relevant, including measures which might have population growth reduction as a side effect, bonus or byproduct.
I am also happy to have the survival of other animals and other living things included in a list of valid concerns, because morally, we don't necessarily need to be entirely anthropocentric.
Finally, in my opinion, it is relevant to not only consider global environmental catastrophe and survival of the (our) species, but also general issues which relate to quality of life.
* If correct, I am not sure why this might be the case. One factor may have to do with earlier forebodings about overpopulation not coming to pass having given population growth policies a bad name. Ditto for cases where such policies were misused. Fear of a slippery slope into misuse generally might play a valid part. Another (I'm guessing) might be that we, and especially those wielding economic power, might prefer the agenda to be about technological innovations (in a globally consumerist culture predicated on economic growth and short-termism, there may be perceived to be more incentives, and people these days do love technology). Nationalism may also impinge, which might involve individual governments not wanting to promote reductions in their own populations (this could include fears about immigration). Similarly for the traditional impulses of religions and other 'tribal' groupings. Also, it seems at least some consider human reproductive rights to trump almost anything else. As someone said, 'people want to have babies'.
Last edited: