The morality of Population growth control measures

[bilby]

Population growth control measures are all either immoral; or are morally justified by benefits unrelated to population.

As I posted in the related thread in the Natural Science forum:

Population IS the 'real human world'. It's the thing we are trying to sustain.

Every single medical problem you have ever had is due to your being alive. If you were not alive, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to your medical issues is to stop living.

That's (I hope obviously) a stupid argument; so how is it different from:

Every single environmental problem we have ever had is due to our population. If we did not have a population, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to our environmental issues is to reduce population.

Solutions that cause more harm than the problems they are intended to address are NOT viable solutions. They are not even SANE solutions.

Population control is insane. It's a non-solution to a non-problem.

The ONLY population control measure that I would support is for all the people who are worried about population levels to remove themselves from the population.

All the other measures that have any impact on population do so as a side effect of something that is worthwhile in its own right - education, improved life expectancy and lower child mortality, reproductive freedom, etc; Or that are clearly and unequivocally immoral - forced sterilization, genocide, war, famine, etc.

It is therefore both needless and dangerous to discuss population as a 'problem'.

It is exactly as worthwhile and sensible a discussion to have as were the learned discussions in the 1930s regarding the Jewish Problem. 'Population' is a red flag that says "dangerously inhumane ideas ahead". For every academic toying with the idea of establishing a nice homeland for the Jews in Madagascar, there are a dozen blackshirts who see the learned consideration of the 'problem' as justification for gas chambers.

Numbers are, perhaps, "relevant" (for a given value of "relevant") but cannot be addressed humanely. Other causes of environmental problems are able to be addressed humanely, and for EVERY problem, there is such a solution.

IOW, for the sake of humanity, we need to shut the fuck up about population, and start dealing with the actual problems in the environment. THAT is by FAR the best solution to the 'population problem'.

So never mind whether this or that measure to control population growth is immoral - the very idea that we should employ any measure for the purpose of controlling population growth is itself immoral.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's delusional to think that having children is within our conscious control. I think we're remote controlled by our genes to have children, and our idea that it's within our conscious control is after the fact rationalisations.

I think people who are emotionally shut down for whatever traumatic reasons may have more of a conscious control over this. But these are not happy people, and shouldn't be a emotional state we wish to live in.

So I think the entire discussion is moot. We can only talk about morality regarding things we can control. This ain't it.

There would be no one choosing not to have children if that were the case. In fact, there might be no one stopping after just one.

I think you might have thought that one through better, to be honest.

In fact...

Ha. You're kidding. Lol. It took me a while to realise. Good one.

I'm really not kidding. I think people who decide not to have children aren't. Well.. they are. But it's a purely emotionally driven decision process. It's not a rational decision. I think the reasons people give for not having children never make sense. They're all bizarre. As you'll realise if you dig a bit. That's my impression.

BTW, I did not come up with this on my own. I had the same opinion as you and mentioned it to some people at a party I was schooled. I looked it up, and it's solid. Just read up on contemporary studies on consciousness. I recommend Susan Blackmore's book on it.

https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Short-Introduction-Susan-Blackmore/dp/0192805851

Thomas Metzinger's The Ego Tunnel is also good. Your consciousness is not making the decisions, and if that's true, then the reason somebody gives for not having children is always bullshit.

 

[fromderinside]

Population growth control measures are all either immoral; or are morally justified by benefits unrelated to population.

As I posted in the related thread in the Natural Science forum:

Population IS the 'real human world'. It's the thing we are trying to sustain.

Every single medical problem you have ever had is due to your being alive. If you were not alive, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to your medical issues is to stop living.

That's (I hope obviously) a stupid argument; so how is it different from:

Every single environmental problem we have ever had is due to our population. If we did not have a population, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to our environmental issues is to reduce population.

Solutions that cause more harm than the problems they are intended to address are NOT viable solutions. They are not even SANE solutions.

Population control is insane. It's a non-solution to a non-problem.

The ONLY population control measure that I would support is for all the people who are worried about population levels to remove themselves from the population.

All the other measures that have any impact on population do so as a side effect of something that is worthwhile in its own right - education, improved life expectancy and lower child mortality, reproductive freedom, etc; Or that are clearly and unequivocally immoral - forced sterilization, genocide, war, famine, etc.

It is therefore both needless and dangerous to discuss population as a 'problem'.

It is exactly as worthwhile and sensible a discussion to have as were the learned discussions in the 1930s regarding the Jewish Problem. 'Population' is a red flag that says "dangerously inhumane ideas ahead". For every academic toying with the idea of establishing a nice homeland for the Jews in Madagascar, there are a dozen blackshirts who see the learned consideration of the 'problem' as justification for gas chambers.

Numbers are, perhaps, "relevant" (for a given value of "relevant") but cannot be addressed humanely. Other causes of environmental problems are able to be addressed humanely, and for EVERY problem, there is such a solution.

IOW, for the sake of humanity, we need to shut the fuck up about population, and start dealing with the actual problems in the environment. THAT is by FAR the best solution to the 'population problem'.

So never mind whether this or that measure to control population growth is immoral - the very idea that we should employ any measure for the purpose of controlling population growth is itself immoral.

According to AI Bartlett Population is not sustainable He thinks it is a bit like a speed limit on organisms.

Laws, hypotheses, observations and predictions relating to sustainability https://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_reflections_part_5.html

If that is so your concluding statement is False.

Enjoy

 

[PyramidHead]

Population growth control measures are all either immoral; or are morally justified by benefits unrelated to population.

As I posted in the related thread in the Natural Science forum:

Population IS the 'real human world'. It's the thing we are trying to sustain.

Every single medical problem you have ever had is due to your being alive. If you were not alive, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to your medical issues is to stop living.

That's (I hope obviously) a stupid argument; so how is it different from:

Every single environmental problem we have ever had is due to our population. If we did not have a population, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to our environmental issues is to reduce population.

Solutions that cause more harm than the problems they are intended to address are NOT viable solutions. They are not even SANE solutions.

Population control is insane. It's a non-solution to a non-problem.

The ONLY population control measure that I would support is for all the people who are worried about population levels to remove themselves from the population.

All the other measures that have any impact on population do so as a side effect of something that is worthwhile in its own right - education, improved life expectancy and lower child mortality, reproductive freedom, etc; Or that are clearly and unequivocally immoral - forced sterilization, genocide, war, famine, etc.

It is therefore both needless and dangerous to discuss population as a 'problem'.

It is exactly as worthwhile and sensible a discussion to have as were the learned discussions in the 1930s regarding the Jewish Problem. 'Population' is a red flag that says "dangerously inhumane ideas ahead". For every academic toying with the idea of establishing a nice homeland for the Jews in Madagascar, there are a dozen blackshirts who see the learned consideration of the 'problem' as justification for gas chambers.

Numbers are, perhaps, "relevant" (for a given value of "relevant") but cannot be addressed humanely. Other causes of environmental problems are able to be addressed humanely, and for EVERY problem, there is such a solution.

IOW, for the sake of humanity, we need to shut the fuck up about population, and start dealing with the actual problems in the environment. THAT is by FAR the best solution to the 'population problem'.

So never mind whether this or that measure to control population growth is immoral - the very idea that we should employ any measure for the purpose of controlling population growth is itself immoral.

It wasn't convincing then and it isn't convincing now, bilby. You conflate two things: reducing population through not generating it in the first place (via measures such as those proposed in the OP article) and reducing it through widespread massacre. It's a rhetorical trick worthy of the most alarmist right-wing critic of socialized health care, and you don't disappoint with your dutiful inclusion of the Nazi example. The flaw in your moral reasoning is right here:

Population IS the 'real human world'. It's the thing we are trying to sustain.

Every single medical problem you have ever had is due to your being alive. If you were not alive, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to your medical issues is to stop living.

That's (I hope obviously) a stupid argument; so how is it different from:

Every single environmental problem we have ever had is due to our population. If we did not have a population, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to our environmental issues is to reduce population.

Solutions that cause more harm than the problems they are intended to address are NOT viable solutions. They are not even SANE solutions.

Population control is insane. It's a non-solution to a non-problem.

Moral concerns are concerns about the well-being and suffering of fellow sentient beings. They are not concerns about the future existence of more beings whom we can then expect to be morally concerned about. So, when you frame the central issue as one of trying to sustain the human population, you fail to realize that this is just a proxy for the actual moral issue of limiting the pain, injustice, and hardship that we cause to future generations through any action or inaction of ours, including our failure to prevent them being here to endure those harms. As the saying goes, it is more important to make people happy than to make happy people, because failing to make people happy results in the existence of unhappy people while failing to make happy people from scratch does not. So, your attempt at a reductio argument fails, because there is nothing absurd about reducing the number of people who will be forced, without their consent (as none is possible) to deal with the problem we are bound to leave for them.

I'll even take it to an extreme, and have you explain to me what the moral problem would be if there was no more human population at all due to the cessation of reproduction. This is a thought experiment, so I'm allowed to stipulate that the cessation was wholly voluntary on the part of each individual human. They simply lived the rest of their lives as they normally would have, except without offspring, and then died--also assume some artificial mechanism to care for the last remaining elderly people. This is a completely unlikely, abstract scenario that will never happen, but I invoke it because you presaged the idea in italics. So, I ask you: who would be harmed in this fictional example, and in what way would the environmental problem not be solved? Of course, the only honest answer is that nobody would be harmed and the environmental problem would be permanently solved.

Therefore, whatever your disagreement is, it isn't with the claim that a problem can be solved by depriving it of its victims. In practice, you worry that the implementation of such a strategy would be disastrous, and you're right, which is why nobody is suggesting that we attempt to convince every living human to abstain from reproduction. But your framing of the issue as a principled objection to population control per se on the grounds that it is harmful no matter what because it lessens what we are 'trying to sustain' is at odds with morality.

It's a common error in reasoning to eliminate as immoral or insane, either consciously or not, any courses of action that limit the spread of human life in the future. As if every moral choice we make is guaranteed full compatibility with the multiplication of our genes, without any preceding analysis for why this impulse should be shielded from all evaluation when so many others are subsumed. For that matter, it strikes me as morally lazy to simply conclude that all moral activity should be 'viable'. Is it not often the most difficult choices, requiring the deepest sacrifices, that characterize truly moral actions? There is the question of whether or not some action is viable and the question of whether or not it is moral, but they are not the same question. You may be right that widespread population control is not viable, but without linking this non-viability to morality, it seems rational to simply conclude that in this situation, the moral course of action is not viable for whatever reason. None of this watering down of morality and compromising with the extrinsic goals of human proliferation and convencience. That might work in politics and rhetoric, but in a philosophical context we should be honest and forthright about what is actually taking place.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think it's delusional to think that having children is within our conscious control. I think we're remote controlled by our genes to have children, and our idea that it's within our conscious control is after the fact rationalisations.

I think people who are emotionally shut down for whatever traumatic reasons may have more of a conscious control over this. But these are not happy people, and shouldn't be a emotional state we wish to live in.

So I think the entire discussion is moot. We can only talk about morality regarding things we can control. This ain't it.

There would be no one choosing not to have children if that were the case. In fact, there might be no one stopping after just one.

I think you might have thought that one through better, to be honest.

In fact...

Ha. You're kidding. Lol. It took me a while to realise. Good one.

I'm really not kidding. I think people who decide not to have children aren't. Well.. they are. But it's a purely emotionally driven decision process. It's not a rational decision. I think the reasons people give for not having children never make sense. They're all bizarre. As you'll realise if you dig a bit. That's my impression.

BTW, I did not come up with this on my own. I had the same opinion as you and mentioned it to some people at a party I was schooled. I looked it up, and it's solid. Just read up on contemporary studies on consciousness. I recommend Susan Blackmore's book on it.

https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Short-Introduction-Susan-Blackmore/dp/0192805851

Thomas Metzinger's The Ego Tunnel is also good. Your consciousness is not making the decisions, and if that's true, then the reason somebody gives for not having children is always bullshit.

In strict free will terms, I agree, because I don't believe in free will.

But you went further than that, citing in particular unhappy people, trauma and emotional shutdown.

These are not necessarily accurate terms to describe that subset of 'ultimately unfree' people who choose (ultimately unfreely imo) not to have children, and that was what I was querying.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In strict free will terms, I agree, because I don't believe in free will.

I both believe and don't believe in free will at the same time, because every term and dimension in the free will debate is on wheels. I think the entire debate is nonsense.

But you went further than that, citing unhappy people, trauma and emotional shutdown.

These are not necessarily accurate terms to describe people who choose not to have children and that was what I was querying.

Because that's what I think is going on. For simplicities sake, let's call it humanness. When a person feels loved, supported, validated and safe they'll go inward more and just do what is in their hearts desire... fuck the consequences. This is what Freud called the ID. This is counterbalanced by everything in our society saying "no, you can't". Everything from social rules, as well as psychological dysfunction. Freud's super ego. An unrestricted ID will do little else but squeeze out kids.

My experience is that people who are open, sensitive and playful have a lot of children, because these traits are all connected. They're all behaviours that happens when we feel validated and safe. The women I know who have the most kids are all very artistically inclined people. They're people who are "in touch with themselves" for want of a better term. When they listen inwards they are confident enough to follow what comes out. The men I know who have a lot of kids are all extremely stable people. They're so stable, one might call them boring.

I'm aware that I might be over-generalising. But this is just my impression of what is going on. But I do think that people who "chose" not to have kids are in some way broken. And that's down to simple deduction. Your entire genome exists because it's good at doing one thing and one thing only, to spread it's genes. If it doesn't, then it's not working.

I'm not saying that having children is the meaning of life, or that people should have children... or even that people with children are happier. I'm also not saying that being normal is desirable. Or that if you don't want to have children something is wrong with you, in a wider sense. But you are half of a baby making machine. We all are. If we're not doing that the machine isn't doing what it's designed for. Why would nature program in choice? It makes no sense.

 

[ruby sparks]

But I do think that people who "chose" not to have kids are in some way broken. And that's down to simple deduction. Your entire genome exists because it's good at doing one thing and one thing only, to spread it's genes. If it doesn't, then it's not working.

I'm not saying that having children is the meaning of life, or that people should have children... or even that people with children are happier. I'm also not saying that being normal is desirable. Or that if you don't want to have children something is wrong with you, in a wider sense. But you are half of a baby making machine. We all are. If we're not doing that the machine isn't doing what it's designed for. Why would nature program in choice? It makes no sense.

Especially in a thread on morality, I think your use of the word 'wrong' is questionable.

Other than that, I accept that you're just expressing your opinion and that you are generalising.

I still wouldn't agree. Especially nowadays. Even if we don't have free will, we can still make conscious choices and are not at the mercy of evolved traits and impulses to the same extent other animals are. No we are not as you put it 'controlled by our genes'. That's just incorrect, on every level, even without free will.

Many people, especially nowadays, are freeing themselves by choosing not to have children (or to have fewer children) for conscious reasons and personal preferences, and in some cases that will include not wanting to add to the burden on the planet.

 

[PyramidHead]

In strict free will terms, I agree, because I don't believe in free will.

I both believe and don't believe in free will at the same time, because every term and dimension in the free will debate is on wheels. I think the entire debate is nonsense.

But you went further than that, citing unhappy people, trauma and emotional shutdown.

These are not necessarily accurate terms to describe people who choose not to have children and that was what I was querying.

Because that's what I think is going on. For simplicities sake, let's call it humanness. When a person feels loved, supported, validated and safe they'll go inward more and just do what is in their hearts desire... fuck the consequences. This is what Freud called the ID. This is counterbalanced by everything in our society saying "no, you can't". Everything from social rules, as well as psychological dysfunction. Freud's super ego. An unrestricted ID will do little else but squeeze out kids.

My experience is that people who are open, sensitive and playful have a lot of children, because these traits are all connected. They're all behaviours that happens when we feel validated and safe. The women I know who have the most kids are all very artistically inclined people. They're people who are "in touch with themselves" for want of a better term. When they listen inwards they are confident enough to follow what comes out. The men I know who have a lot of kids are all extremely stable people. They're so stable, one might call them boring.

I'm aware that I might be over-generalising. But this is just my impression of what is going on. But I do think that people who "chose" not to have kids are in some way broken. And that's down to simple deduction. Your entire genome exists because it's good at doing one thing and one thing only, to spread it's genes. If it doesn't, then it's not working.

I'm not saying that having children is the meaning of life, or that people should have children... or even that people with children are happier. I'm also not saying that being normal is desirable. Or that if you don't want to have children something is wrong with you, in a wider sense. But you are half of a baby making machine. We all are. If we're not doing that the machine isn't doing what it's designed for. Why would nature program in choice? It makes no sense.

My interpretation of all that is to compare it to other urges nature has given us. People who don't violently subjugate their competitors for resources and mates are broken in the same sense as those who choose not to procreate. Going against a genetic impulse for moral reasons is not irrational, as we have no reason to expect our genes to align in their priorities with moral obligations... and many examples of the reverse. So, while it may be the case that a correlation exists between people with certain emotional proclivities and people who have children (which I would speculate is completely a cultural phenomenon and perhaps an effect of the lavish rewards society bestows upon parents for simply being parents), that says nothing about our ability to nonetheless opt out of pursuing that kind of emotional fulfillment, nor about to what extent we should be willing to do so. In other words, the moral course of action might be, as it so often is, to treat my interest in being happy or emotionally fulfilled as secondary to an ethical duty. The degree to which the behavior I'm trying to avoid is "natural" or not only matters as a description of how big of an obstacle I have to overcome.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I still wouldn't agree. Especially nowadays. Even if we don't have free will, we can still make conscious choices and are not at the mercy of evolved traits and impulses to the same extent other animals are. No we are not as you put it 'controlled by our genes'. That's just incorrect, on every level, even without free will.

Your consciousness isn't making any of your decisions. That's not what the consciousness is for. There is still some debate regarding what the consciousness is for, but it's not for making decisions.

Claiming that you are not "at the mercy of evolved traits and impulses to the same extent other animals are" is laughably arrogant. Of course you are. They're just expressing themselves differently. And since we like to think of ourselves as special, we see this specialness as us having more freedom. But we don't. Obviously.

But we are self-reflexive. Which allows for meta-thinking. This is probably unique to humans. But we're still just as much at the mercy of evolved traits and impulses as every other animals. We can just obey those impulses more cleverly. You still have no option to not obey.

Many people, especially nowadays, are freeing themselves by choosing not to have children (or to have fewer children) for conscious reasons and personal preferences, and in some cases that will include not wanting to add to the burden on the planet.

Absolute nonsense. After the fact justifications. And we know this for a fact. It's down to statistical analysis.

When it comes to "choosing" when to have children humans have two genetically preprogrammed behaviours. High investment or low investement. If you're able to fill your caloric requirement every day, nature will see to it that you have few children, and you will love them a lot and give them lots of attention. If you have problem feeding yourself sometimes you will seize every window of plenty to have more children.

This is well supported by the research today.

We're not evolutionarily adapted to never starve. Nor have access to extreme high-calory foods, like sugar. So we're probably fucking with this genetically programmed mechanism. The extreme caloric access probably shifts up our demands for a suitable mate. So we'll perhaps only consider having children with somebody unrealistically perfect.

You're just choosing to interpret the shift from the first system to the second system as you making a choice. I'm sorry, but that's delusional. Of course there's no choice going on.

I'd say the onus is on whoever thinks it's a choice to come up with a convincing evolutionary mechanic for it to happen. Until then, I'm not buying it.

Your consciousness will create the illusion that you took your decisions for rational reasons. All your decisions. This is probably because your consciousness is part of the speech/communication centre and our intelligence has, probably, evolved in order to make us good liars. Lies are more convincing if you believe your own lies, and aren't even aware of that you're lying. It also speeds up communication if your consciousness creates a simplified model for how you reached your decisions. The actual workings of your decision-making process, is probably messy and complicated to express... and not interesting. So your consciousness simplifies it to that it's what you decided with your free will.

 

[fromderinside]

consciousness equals the illusion that your decisions are rational. Noting more. Nothing less.

 

[ruby sparks]

I still wouldn't agree. Especially nowadays. Even if we don't have free will, we can still make conscious choices and are not at the mercy of evolved traits and impulses to the same extent other animals are. No we are not as you put it 'controlled by our genes'. That's just incorrect, on every level, even without free will.

Your consciousness isn't making any of your decisions. That's not what the consciousness is for. There is still some debate regarding what the consciousness is for, but it's not for making decisions.

Claiming that you are not "at the mercy of evolved traits and impulses to the same extent other animals are" is laughably arrogant. Of course you are. They're just expressing themselves differently. And since we like to think of ourselves as special, we see this specialness as us having more freedom. But we don't. Obviously.

But we are self-reflexive. Which allows for meta-thinking. This is probably unique to humans. But we're still just as much at the mercy of evolved traits and impulses as every other animals. We can just obey those impulses more cleverly. You still have no option to not obey.

Many people, especially nowadays, are freeing themselves by choosing not to have children (or to have fewer children) for conscious reasons and personal preferences, and in some cases that will include not wanting to add to the burden on the planet.

Absolute nonsense. After the fact justifications. And we know this for a fact. It's down to statistical analysis.

When it comes to "choosing" when to have children humans have two genetically preprogrammed behaviours. High investment or low investement. If you're able to fill your caloric requirement every day, nature will see to it that you have few children, and you will love them a lot and give them lots of attention. If you have problem feeding yourself sometimes you will seize every window of plenty to have more children.

This is well supported by the research today.

We're not evolutionarily adapted to never starve. Nor have access to extreme high-calory foods, like sugar. So we're probably fucking with this genetically programmed mechanism. The extreme caloric access probably shifts up our demands for a suitable mate. So we'll perhaps only consider having children with somebody unrealistically perfect.

You're just choosing to interpret the shift from the first system to the second system as you making a choice. I'm sorry, but that's delusional. Of course there's no choice going on.

I'd say the onus is on whoever thinks it's a choice to come up with a convincing evolutionary mechanic for it to happen. Until then, I'm not buying it.

Your consciousness will create the illusion that you took your decisions for rational reasons. All your decisions. This is probably because your consciousness is part of the speech/communication centre and our intelligence has, probably, evolved in order to make us good liars. Lies are more convincing if you believe your own lies, and aren't even aware of that you're lying. It also speeds up communication if your consciousness creates a simplified model for how you reached your decisions. The actual workings of your decision-making process, is probably messy and complicated to express... and not interesting. So your consciousness simplifies it to that it's what you decided with your free will.

All well and good, and free will is arguably slightly off the main topic, but if all you say above is the case (and I'm not necessarily saying it is because it is not the case that we are controlled by our genes for example), then how come, according to you, "people who are emotionally shut down for whatever traumatic reasons may have more of a conscious control over this"?

Because that's why I replied to you in the first place.

Also, what is 'remote control' by genes?

And what's this: "We can only talk about morality regarding things we can control". What things are those then, in light of all you just said?

 

[Bronzeage]

The fundamental problem of population control is that the incentives and disincentives which guide people's choices, have no effect on the people who create the population problem, who of course are people have yet to be conceived and be born.

I'm sorry, in what way do as-yet-unborn people create the population problem? What act of theirs, that they could have avoided doing, creates the problem we're trying to solve? Merely existing?

That's a lot like saying gun control doesn't target what really creates the problem, which is the energy transferred from a bullet to flesh upon impact.

Without putting too fine a point on it, each person born, increases the population by one. There is nothing one can take to avoid being born, which is part of the problem.

 

[PyramidHead]

The fundamental problem of population control is that the incentives and disincentives which guide people's choices, have no effect on the people who create the population problem, who of course are people have yet to be conceived and be born.

I'm sorry, in what way do as-yet-unborn people create the population problem? What act of theirs, that they could have avoided doing, creates the problem we're trying to solve? Merely existing?

That's a lot like saying gun control doesn't target what really creates the problem, which is the energy transferred from a bullet to flesh upon impact.

Without putting too fine a point on it, each person born, increases the population by one. There is nothing one can take to avoid being born, which is part of the problem.

But you said incentivizing people's choices (including presumably reproductive choices) would have no effect on "the people who create the population problem". It's not like people are just randomly born when a breeze picks up. It requires some cooperative action on the part of some specific people, and that should be amenable to many kinds of incentives. In fact, we know that it must be, since society already incentivizes reproduction so positively and incessantly, which it would not do if that had no effect on the population.

 

[bilby]

It wasn't convincing then and it isn't convincing now, bilby. You conflate two things: reducing population through not generating it in the first place (via measures such as those proposed in the OP article) and reducing it through widespread massacre. It's a rhetorical trick worthy of the most alarmist right-wing critic of socialized health care, and you don't disappoint with your dutiful inclusion of the Nazi example. The flaw in your moral reasoning is right here:

Population IS the 'real human world'. It's the thing we are trying to sustain.

Every single medical problem you have ever had is due to your being alive. If you were not alive, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to your medical issues is to stop living.

That's (I hope obviously) a stupid argument; so how is it different from:

Every single environmental problem we have ever had is due to our population. If we did not have a population, none of those problems would exist. Therefore, the solution to our environmental issues is to reduce population.

Solutions that cause more harm than the problems they are intended to address are NOT viable solutions. They are not even SANE solutions.

Population control is insane. It's a non-solution to a non-problem.

Moral concerns are concerns about the well-being and suffering of fellow sentient beings. They are not concerns about the future existence of more beings whom we can then expect to be morally concerned about. So, when you frame the central issue as one of trying to sustain the human population, you fail to realize that this is just a proxy for the actual moral issue of limiting the pain, injustice, and hardship that we cause to future generations through any action or inaction of ours, including our failure to prevent them being here to endure those harms. As the saying goes, it is more important to make people happy than to make happy people, because failing to make people happy results in the existence of unhappy people while failing to make happy people from scratch does not. So, your attempt at a reductio argument fails, because there is nothing absurd about reducing the number of people who will be forced, without their consent (as none is possible) to deal with the problem we are bound to leave for them.

I'll even take it to an extreme, and have you explain to me what the moral problem would be if there was no more human population at all due to the cessation of reproduction. This is a thought experiment, so I'm allowed to stipulate that the cessation was wholly voluntary on the part of each individual human. They simply lived the rest of their lives as they normally would have, except without offspring, and then died--also assume some artificial mechanism to care for the last remaining elderly people. This is a completely unlikely, abstract scenario that will never happen, but I invoke it because you presaged the idea in italics. So, I ask you: who would be harmed in this fictional example, and in what way would the environmental problem not be solved? Of course, the only honest answer is that nobody would be harmed and the environmental problem would be permanently solved.

Therefore, whatever your disagreement is, it isn't with the claim that a problem can be solved by depriving it of its victims. In practice, you worry that the implementation of such a strategy would be disastrous, and you're right, which is why nobody is suggesting that we attempt to convince every living human to abstain from reproduction. But your framing of the issue as a principled objection to population control per se on the grounds that it is harmful no matter what because it lessens what we are 'trying to sustain' is at odds with morality.

It's a common error in reasoning to eliminate as immoral or insane, either consciously or not, any courses of action that limit the spread of human life in the future. As if every moral choice we make is guaranteed full compatibility with the multiplication of our genes, without any preceding analysis for why this impulse should be shielded from all evaluation when so many others are subsumed. For that matter, it strikes me as morally lazy to simply conclude that all moral activity should be 'viable'. Is it not often the most difficult choices, requiring the deepest sacrifices, that characterize truly moral actions? There is the question of whether or not some action is viable and the question of whether or not it is moral, but they are not the same question. You may be right that widespread population control is not viable, but without linking this non-viability to morality, it seems rational to simply conclude that in this situation, the moral course of action is not viable for whatever reason. None of this watering down of morality and compromising with the extrinsic goals of human proliferation and convencience. That might work in politics and rhetoric, but in a philosophical context we should be honest and forthright about what is actually taking place.

Perhaps. But what you are attempting to rebut here is not the main thrust of my argument (and is instead a dismissal of an argument to which I was replying - that post is taken verbatim from a different conversation).

My actual argument here (which starts AFTER the italicised text, and most of which you snipped) is that the morality or otherwise of population control is irrelevant, because ALL of the ways to achieve it are EITHER morally good regardless of their impact on population; OR morally repugnant because they entail genocide or massive intrusion on human freedoms.

 

[Bronzeage]

Without putting too fine a point on it, each person born, increases the population by one. There is nothing one can take to avoid being born, which is part of the problem.

But you said incentivizing people's choices (including presumably reproductive choices) would have no effect on "the people who create the population problem". It's not like people are just randomly born when a breeze picks up. It requires some cooperative action on the part of some specific people, and that should be amenable to many kinds of incentives. In fact, we know that it must be, since society already incentivizes reproduction so positively and incessantly, which it would not do if that had no effect on the population.

That part was a joke. It's a lead in to the argument that reducing the number of people already born is not an effective means to control excess population.

 

[fromderinside]

If one observes how things have zigged and zagged between technology and tribalism over the industrial age, perhaps from the age of enlightenment one should observe cycles, swings in approaches, from technological to tribal in response to social challenges. Prior to the current wave of immigration induced increase in tribal actions for keeping out and bringing in productive groups, we had both contraceptive and green technology thrusts enabling both growth and constraint in human reproductive productivity. Sometime technology works against social and at other times the opposite is true.

Point being we know the primary actors for regulating population. I argue population regulation is built into current human nature. Population control becomes a tool measured within that nature, therefore such is moral.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All well and good, and free will is arguably slightly off the main topic, but if all you say above is the case (and I'm not necessarily saying it is because it is not the case that we are controlled by our genes for example), then how come, according to you, "people who are emotionally shut down for whatever traumatic reasons may have more of a conscious control over this"?

Because that's why I replied to you in the first place.

I think it has to do with second guessing yourself. Not trusting your own feelings. It creates a distance between whatever it is that makes decisions and your hearts desires. Only people who don't trust what they are feeling, can move decisions through a more rational filter. Fundamentally, we're still ruled by feelings. It's just extra added steps that open up for a more rational approach.

Also, what is 'remote control' by genes?

If you obey your genes they trigger dopamine, serotonin, and whatever else makes you feel happy. If you don't obey your genes they trigger stuff that makes you anxious, angry or sad. That's why any decision you take is a faux decision. A choice between happiness and sadness isn't really a choice. And if it's a choice between two things that will cause neither emotional reaction in you, you won't care, so you won't make a decision.

But the instrument by which our genes control us is an exceedingly blunt instrument. That's why humans have been cheerfully having had sex for generations using condoms, and our genes have yet to adapt to create a revulsion to condom use. Which will happen. It's just a matter of time.

And what's this: "We can only talk about morality regarding things we can control". What things are those then, in light of all you just said?

Here's an example of what I mean. Imagine a pedophile. The only joy he gets in life is molesting children. His choices are, act on this and be happy for a little while, and then go to jail forever or don't act on it and be sad for the rest of his life. Any thinking rational human would go with molesting the child. A moments happiness is always better than a lifetime of sadness.

Moral choices are faux choices. You're not really choosing between moral options. You never really had a choice. You're just following your genetic programming and then justifying them after the fact. There's zero moral reasoning behind anything you do. That's why everybody sees themselves as the good guy in their little story they play in their heads. Hitler was constantly whining to his staff about the burden of sacrificing himself for the German people. In his head, he was the victim. The good guy. You're doing the same. Minus the extermination of Europe's jewry.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think it has to do with second guessing yourself. Not trusting your own feelings. It creates a distance between whatever it is that makes decisions and your hearts desires. Only people who don't trust what they are feeling, can move decisions through a more rational filter. Fundamentally, we're still ruled by feelings. It's just extra added steps that open up for a more rational approach.



If you obey your genes they trigger dopamine, serotonin, and whatever else makes you feel happy. If you don't obey your genes they trigger stuff that makes you anxious, angry or sad. That's why any decision you take is a faux decision. A choice between happiness and sadness isn't really a choice. And if it's a choice between two things that will cause neither emotional reaction in you, you won't care, so you won't make a decision.

But the instrument by which our genes control us is an exceedingly blunt instrument. That's why humans have been cheerfully having had sex for generations using condoms, and our genes have yet to adapt to create a revulsion to condom use. Which will happen. It's just a matter of time.

And what's this: "We can only talk about morality regarding things we can control". What things are those then, in light of all you just said?

Here's an example of what I mean. Imagine a pedophile. The only joy he gets in life is molesting children. His choices are, act on this and be happy for a little while, and then go to jail forever or don't act on it and be sad for the rest of his life. Any thinking rational human would go with molesting the child. A moments happiness is always better than a lifetime of sadness.

Moral choices are faux choices. You're not really choosing between moral options. You never really had a choice. You're just following your genetic programming and then justifying them after the fact. There's zero moral reasoning behind anything you do. That's why everybody sees themselves as the good guy in their little story they play in their heads. Hitler was constantly whining to his staff about the burden of sacrificing himself for the German people. In his head, he was the victim. The good guy. You're doing the same. Minus the extermination of Europe's jewry.

Your conception of genetic programming is kind of antiquated, doc, and you don't seem to leave any role for culture. Plenty of things that disobey my genetic programming also make me feel happy, and plenty of things that follow genetic impulses make me anxious, angry, or sad. Genes shape our behavior in powerful ways, but they aren't the whole story. Even as I eventually agree with you that we don't have free reign over our conscious choices, I think pinning it all on genes is a bit simplistic.

 

[ronburgundy]

I largely agree with with coercion dimension and where the categories of actions fall. However, I would argue that neutral policies that lack rewards people for having kids are on the left rather than "near the middle". Tax breaks for having kids are an "incentive" and thus on the right of middle, thus the absence of incentives is on the left and really involves zero coercion. In fact, even taxing people for having kids (i.e., requiring them to pay for the cost to others of their chosen action to procreate) is actually less coercive that taxing people without kids and giving that $ to people with kids (i.e., requiring people to pay for the actions of others).

I am definitely in favor of "preference adjustment" (aka education and providing information), so long as the information is science-based). I am also in favor of various "incentives", especially if they contingent upon whether the incentivized choice objectively benefits or reduces harm to others. Thus, I think in principle there is a more valid moral argument to be made for a child tax than a child tax credit, especially if there is an exemption for lower income people to avoid the tax causing actual harm to the child which would also harm society eventually, thus defeating the purpose of the tax in the first place.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think it has to do with second guessing yourself. Not trusting your own feelings. It creates a distance between whatever it is that makes decisions and your hearts desires. Only people who don't trust what they are feeling, can move decisions through a more rational filter. Fundamentally, we're still ruled by feelings. It's just extra added steps that open up for a more rational approach.



If you obey your genes they trigger dopamine, serotonin, and whatever else makes you feel happy. If you don't obey your genes they trigger stuff that makes you anxious, angry or sad. That's why any decision you take is a faux decision. A choice between happiness and sadness isn't really a choice. And if it's a choice between two things that will cause neither emotional reaction in you, you won't care, so you won't make a decision.

But the instrument by which our genes control us is an exceedingly blunt instrument. That's why humans have been cheerfully having had sex for generations using condoms, and our genes have yet to adapt to create a revulsion to condom use. Which will happen. It's just a matter of time.

And what's this: "We can only talk about morality regarding things we can control". What things are those then, in light of all you just said?

Here's an example of what I mean. Imagine a pedophile. The only joy he gets in life is molesting children. His choices are, act on this and be happy for a little while, and then go to jail forever or don't act on it and be sad for the rest of his life. Any thinking rational human would go with molesting the child. A moments happiness is always better than a lifetime of sadness.

Moral choices are faux choices. You're not really choosing between moral options. You never really had a choice. You're just following your genetic programming and then justifying them after the fact. There's zero moral reasoning behind anything you do. That's why everybody sees themselves as the good guy in their little story they play in their heads. Hitler was constantly whining to his staff about the burden of sacrificing himself for the German people. In his head, he was the victim. The good guy. You're doing the same. Minus the extermination of Europe's jewry.

I have to admit, the pedophile economic model is not one you see used a lot.