So how would you go about deciding who exactly represents excess "biomass," and just what measures are you prepared to support to achieve the level "it should be" (half of the present population, less if you only go after fatties)? If you're not up for the Soylent Green "solution," how do you propose to deal with those who are NOT on the demographic decline program (hint: look at population projections for Africa, Asia, Europe then speak VERY carefully about your "program.")
If the presumably "green" western democracies tied economic aid to something like rolling birth rates over a period of years to encourage smaller families (and in effect subsidize this), why is this any different to tying financing to the use of renewables? My point is that we have time, and there may be solutions that are beneficial to all. Let's find them.
Speaking at a policy level makes it too easy to overlook real moral concerns. I strongly agree with Richards warning about the possibility of evil being done in the furtherance of your goal.
Let's say there is an African couple that really wants to have a child. Should we discourage them because we are concerned their new baby will contribute to the degradation of the natural environment? Or would it be more morally acceptable to pay them off? Let's take advantage of the fact they are destitute (by western standards) and just throw them a couple bucks to forego the joy of bringing a baby into the world. Or let's just pay their government to strong arm them into compliance. I don't see any way of "encouraging" that doesn't take a turn toward the unethical.
Good comments, Steve. I wouldn't think any policy should be crafted down to the level of a family, but should rather be a broad measure of the entire country. After all, that's what matters. And you have some people who will have several children, some infant mortality, some who have no children. The replacement rate is about 2 kids anyways. But you are right, there are huge potential moral risks here. Maybe you start by saying something like, "do what you want, but your ability to emigrate to certain countries may be limited if our aggregate birth rate is too high". In other words, they can't externalize the problem by exporting people they can't take care of. Still, your point is well-taken. It's a pretty fundamental right. If a government seeks to control that (China did, of course), what's next?
Again, please expand on just what would be involved in the target countries' efforts "to encourage smaller families." Seems like you could be taking a position where, should evil be done in furtherance of your goal, at least your own hands would be, um, "clean." Further, what would be the readily foreseeable consequences of withholding economic aid to countries whose economies and social systems have become dependent on such largesse? And what if some substantial portion of that "aid" is in the form of electrical power stations, clean water systems, modern mining (low pollution, worker safety) practices, as well as direct food, medical, and anti-malarial (or AIDS or maternal health), supports? Would you subject the USA to such constraints based on "acceptable" population growth (and growth in which racial/ethnic groups specifically?) imposed by a supranational authority or even the US Government itself? If no, why not? And why wouldn't those concerns apply to the rest of the world?
All great questions, and I don't have all the answers. You certainly wouldn't want to get in the business of favoring particular ethnic groups, here or anywhere else. And I would "roll" in the changes. For example, you might target a rolling 5 year period of birth rates that wouldn't start for the next 5 years, to give countries time to message, to adjust, etc. If the aid we're giving truly has value to the recipient nations, I would think those countries would consider the trade-offs and make their own decisions. You might also have to limit their ability to migrate to other countries to encourage internal reform. This is tricky stuff and would have to be thoroughly thought out, but we already tie all kinds of aid to all kinds of metrics. We have birth rates in a number of countries whose families and nations clearly can't accommodate. This will lead to a scarcity of resources, more conflict and endless migration to richer countries which will in effect have to subsidize these birth rates. I don't have all the answers, but I think it's a conversation that is worth having.
Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
Knock yourself out in Africa. Alas, you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore. PEPFAR, courtesy of the American taxpayer, saw to that. Bill and Melinda Gates have also been busy as little beavers supercharging the African reproduction rate (yay maternal health, boo malaria). You're talking out of your ass on "soft" population control. Your "education sessions" and "economic development" are stalking horses for forced abortions and exterminations (by one means or another). Not that there's anything wrong with that—it's just that you're stumbling into this whole thing totally blind to where things inevitably lead.
...have said very little about overpopulation, as far as I know.
"Knock yourself out in Africa."
If borders are closed, then 'we' won't be the ones to enforce anything. The developed world's only role would be to promote women's rights and economic development.
"...forced abortions..."
China tried that route, and eventually found softer methods to be just as effective. Indeed, their population is projected to drop to less than half a billion in the next century, all without enforced abortions.
"...you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore."
That's it, simply insist that I actually have genocide in mind.
So how would you go about deciding who exactly represents excess "biomass," and just what measures are you prepared to support to achieve the level "it should be" (half of the present population, less if you only go after fatties)? If you're not up for the Soylent Green "solution," how do you propose to deal with those who are NOT on the demographic decline program (hint: look at population projections for Africa, Asia, Europe then speak VERY carefully about your "program.")
If the presumably "green" western democracies tied economic aid to something like rolling birth rates over a period of years to encourage smaller families (and in effect subsidize this), why is this any different to tying financing to the use of renewables? My point is that we have time, and there may be solutions that are beneficial to all. Let's find them.
Speaking at a policy level makes it too easy to overlook real moral concerns. I strongly agree with Richards warning about the possibility of evil being done in the furtherance of your goal.
Let's say there is an African couple that really wants to have a child. Should we discourage them because we are concerned their new baby will contribute to the degradation of the natural environment? Or would it be more morally acceptable to pay them off? Let's take advantage of the fact they are destitute (by western standards) and just throw them a couple bucks to forego the joy of bringing a baby into the world. Or let's just pay their government to strong arm them into compliance. I don't see any way of "encouraging" that doesn't take a turn toward the unethical.
Good comments, Steve. I wouldn't think any policy should be crafted down to the level of a family, but should rather be a broad measure of the entire country. After all, that's what matters. And you have some people who will have several children, some infant mortality, some who have no children. The replacement rate is about 2 kids anyways. But you are right, there are huge potential moral risks here. Maybe you start by saying something like, "do what you want, but your ability to emigrate to certain countries may be limited if our aggregate birth rate is too high". In other words, they can't externalize the problem by exporting people they can't take care of. Still, your point is well-taken. It's a pretty fundamental right. If a government seeks to control that (China did, of course), what's next?
Again, please expand on just what would be involved in the target countries' efforts "to encourage smaller families." Seems like you could be taking a position where, should evil be done in furtherance of your goal, at least your own hands would be, um, "clean." Further, what would be the readily foreseeable consequences of withholding economic aid to countries whose economies and social systems have become dependent on such largesse? And what if some substantial portion of that "aid" is in the form of electrical power stations, clean water systems, modern mining (low pollution, worker safety) practices, as well as direct food, medical, and anti-malarial (or AIDS or maternal health), supports? Would you subject the USA to such constraints based on "acceptable" population growth (and growth in which racial/ethnic groups specifically?) imposed by a supranational authority or even the US Government itself? If no, why not? And why wouldn't those concerns apply to the rest of the world?
All great questions, and I don't have all the answers. You certainly wouldn't want to get in the business of favoring particular ethnic groups, here or anywhere else. And I would "roll" in the changes. For example, you might target a rolling 5 year period of birth rates that wouldn't start for the next 5 years, to give countries time to message, to adjust, etc. If the aid we're giving truly has value to the recipient nations, I would think those countries would consider the trade-offs and make their own decisions. You might also have to limit their ability to migrate to other countries to encourage internal reform. This is tricky stuff and would have to be thoroughly thought out, but we already tie all kinds of aid to all kinds of metrics. We have birth rates in a number of countries whose families and nations clearly can't accommodate. This will lead to a scarcity of resources, more conflict and endless migration to richer countries which will in effect have to subsidize these birth rates. I don't have all the answers, but I think it's a conversation that is worth having.
"...who exactly represents excess 'biomass,'..."
Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
Knock yourself out in Africa. Alas, you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore. PEPFAR, courtesy of the American taxpayer, saw to that. Bill and Melinda Gates have also been busy as little beavers supercharging the African reproduction rate (yay maternal health, boo malaria). You're talking out of your ass on "soft" population control. Your "education sessions" and "economic development" are stalking horses for forced abortions and exterminations (by one means or another). Not that there's anything wrong with that—it's just that you're stumbling into this whole thing totally blind to where things inevitably lead.
"Bill and Melinda Gates..."
...have said very little about overpopulation, as far as I know.
"Knock yourself out in Africa."
If borders are closed, then 'we' won't be the ones to enforce anything. The developed world's only role would be to promote women's rights and economic development.
"...forced abortions..."
China tried that route, and eventually found softer methods to be just as effective. Indeed, their population is projected to drop to less than half a billion in the next century, all without enforced abortions.
"...you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore."
That's it, simply insist that I actually have genocide in mind.