Overpopulation: You get to cast the deciding vote.

[KUSA]

Did the Carousel break?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSUAAKFLoL0

Man you get cool points for that. I love Logan's run.

[Catholic_Lady]

It brings to mind the anti-vaxxers and herd immunization.

Excellent analogy.  Personal choice versus the effects on others.

I dunno... I think mandatory disease vaccinations for kids entering public school is a far cry from forcibly sterilizing people's bodies and taking away their right to have kids...

[Cinjin]

I realize your question is a hypothetical one, but I encourage you to watch this documentary by Hans Rosling about the myth of overpopulation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8

I watched this video before.  I watched it again to find the location 28:08.

The good doctor admits that at a population of only 11 billion people "it will be a huge challenge and nothing will come automatically" regarding the question of enough resources.  
All this was in 2012 and climate change has only become worse since then.  Something he doesn't spend enough time addressing.


I would say that although his statistics are accurate, his projections are arguably wishful thinking.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would rather allot freedoms to individuals to decide their family life for themselves, rather than give the government the power to maim citizens in the pursuit of the alleged greater good.

Firstly, the government has a regular habit of abusing any power it is granted, and this would be no different. Except -- the power to maim a citizen, the power to determine that citizen's family life, is such an intrusive power that abuses would help to establish tyranny.

The human species is bound for extinction anyway. This is a brute fact. We will die out. All struggling for survival is currently and will be meaningless because while man proposes, nature disposes. Comet, climate change, megavulcanism, microbial plague. Like well over 99.9999% of all species that have ever lived, we too shall die out. That means that draconian steps taken to forestall this inevitable dieoff are not only inhumane, they are still futile.

I would prefer to live in freedom even knowing that that freedom may be our downfall, only because I know that our downfall will happen through one means or another. Better to die free than to die a serf, sterilized by the government, cowed by authority, beaten into conformity by the fear of death.

[robvalue]

Whoops double post

[robvalue]

This is difficult. Obviously it's a very extreme and specific scenario, which makes a lot of assumptions about there being no other workable solution, which seems extremely unlikely. That's fine with me, just making a note of that. I personally wouldn't like the government to force anything on anyone that isn't completely necessary. But needs must as the devil drives (!?). The government already forces a fair amount of stuff on us in the interests of society.

In this unthinkable state of affairs, I do think the analogy with vaccinations is somewhat valid. It would seem an obscene comparison in today's world, but the world in question is not today's world. Priorities can and must change. Refusing to accept the urgent need for action in the hypothetical is somewhat akin to theists refusing to answer questions about "what if God told you to kill". So in that spirit, I'll say the question is "as silly" as that perhaps, but I'll address it anyway.

If this was to be done, sterilisation as part of the birthing process would make the most sense, but it's not that straightforward because you have the males to consider. (See below.)

So I'm not sure yet, I'll give it more thought.

There is a bit of a problem though. When we say "people" are limited in how many children they can have, how is this counted? Most of you know by now... wait... Young children stop reading! You need a man and a woman in general to make a new human, but the woman parent gives birth to it (in the majority of cases, I'll ignore surrogates for the moment). Does this count towards an individual quota for both parents, or as a couple? If it's individual, we have the problem of the couple splitting up and then getting together with others. How do we make decisions then for the new couples? And of course, there would have to be a lot of DNA testing going on to prove individual qoutas, particular for the fathers, when they deny involvement.

If it's done regarding the couple, then we have problems too because couples break up. So this would have to default to individual quotas again unless we brand the mothers only.

[Longhorn]

Panic and jump out the window. Who the fuck let me in charge anyway?

[Dystopia]

Neither way inherently would mean that humanity would die out.  When animal populations become too great, the natural result is not necessarily extinction.  But it does mean things like starvation for many individuals.

Indeed it means, and it is already happening - Particularly in countries where resources are scarce and the economy doesn't work.

Do you seriously want me to give a response to that?  Are you advocating that as a solution to overpopulation?  Is that what you would like, and wish that I had that as a poll option?

I wouldn't favor that solution - Obviously - But why not? The cost for implementing a measure monitoring how many offspring people have is so high that in the long run it wouldn't compensate us - Financially - You are concerned about overpopulation and how to counter the problem, and since you are perfectly ok with controlling people's lives to the highest degree and even support forced sterilization, I don't see how executing people would be less valid - Both measures are characteristic of authoritarian States, and ultimately it's about a cost/opportunity ratio to determine what's best.

Why do you imagine it is not about morality?  Do you believe that people are only faced with options in which at least one of the choices is purely good?  Is your life that way, such that for every decision you make, there is always at least one unalloyed good option?  Do you believe everyone's life is that way?

Certainly not, everyone needs to make less good decisions and evil is kinda' relative to some extent, but there are limitations to everything

The story would have to be much more detailed to give definitive answers to those questions.  But you do realize that hiding a bunch of children is not easy for most people?  That many of them are likely to be found out if they try to hide it, right?

Since it is not mandatory by law to even get medical appointments when you are pregnant, there's no way to know how many kids families have - Unless you do like the good old inquisition - Offer rewards to neighbors who denounce families with an illegal number of kids, and you'll see that in a few days you'll have lots of letters. Yes, it does sound like the inquisition in Portugal when people told priests that their neighbor ate pork meat and wasn't a good law abiding Christian.

Of course, if you mean to suggest that someone somewhere will be able to cheat whatever system is in place and not get caught, isn't that true of every system and every law that people make?

Yes, but for some systems, particularly ones that restrict people's rights a lot, people have a tendency to find loopholes and rebel themselves against the State. There are a lot of people in society that hate authoritarian measures and would do anything to invent some tool or mechanism that allows people to lie to the State and hide how many kids they have.

How about this:  If you vote to force people to not have more children, you get to pick all of those things for yourself, in any way you like.  We can leave it that way for the purpose of the poll, and, if you wish, you can tell us how you would like these things to be arranged.

[/quote]
Alright - Since you asked - I didn't vote yet but let's assume I vote to force people to not have more children - Here are some points I consider relevant:

- Most western States (I'm using them as a model because I live in one and I can't really talk about what happens in China or India) have some sort of higher law, usually a constitution, whether it is written in a book or sparse by several documents (the UK has the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, etc.) - Most of these documents that benefit from legal superiority in our hierarchy (essentially constitutions are above national, regional and local laws) and of the primary characteristics of modern constitutions is the adherence to the declaration of human rights and generally a high emphasis on fundamental rights, both individual and collective (the common good). There are a lot of laws and principles that result from modern western constitutions and one of them is that usually the State shouldn't severely limit people's private and individual lives(choices) unless it is absolutely necessary and justified. So what bothers me here is - How would western States, with liberal individualistic constitutions that praise individual liberty and abhor authoritarianism and State control - Justify from a legal standpoint the implementation of this measure? I'm not 100% sure about this, but most likely, to implement such measure a democratic State would have to become not fascist but strongly authoritarian at least - A democratic State with a constitution could never implement this measure. Moreover, it's a terrible slippery slope - If the government has power to control how many children I have, why can't it control everything else.

- The biggest problem, in case we've reached a point where the population was so big we needed to control offspring, is how to implement the measure - what technology shall we use? And with who's money? The cost would be pretty high. How would we know who has kids? Maybe we could force people to go to medical appointments anytime they're pregnant but it's a measure without any actual guarantees of working since it's relatively easy to disguise a pregnancy. We run the risk of people revolting against this and even covering each other up and having more kids than necessary

- This measure would hit mostly the lower end classes, the very poor (those who have more children) - Rich and middle class individuals have no problem with not having more kids than they should, and they may even not have a lot of them without this law, but the lower end socio-economic class would struggle against this and, as I've said before, there's no use in having an army and implementing this measure if you have a big part of the population picking up guns to rebel against you (assuming inequality keeps rising as it is right now and with overpopulation it would rise even further)

- I find the probability of this happening in democratic countries very low to even consider a reality - As you know, I am Portuguese - Back in the day when we were a dictatorship a lot of people were poor, so basically they had like 5-10 kids, everyone had lots of kids and the fact the latter were a source of income because you could work as long as you were 10 years old didn't help - After the revolution, women's emancipation and rights, free education and so on people stopped having so many kids - The average number of kids Portuguese people have right now, if I'm not mistake, is about 1.7 (it's not even 2!), and we didn't need economic measures to stop having kids, we simply needed healthy emancipation of women and women pursuing careers, as well as people having a sense of morality and planning better when to have kids and how to provide correctly for all of them instead of simply having 10 kids just to work for income. Right now, we face the contrary problem as the rest of the world (and a part of Europe is in the same situation) - Too many old people, too few young, our successive governments need pro-birth policies but they've failed over and over and over again - The result we're seeing is that because we have lots of oldies and most are retired and receive a pension, but few young people discounting for social security, we need to cut pensions for old people and this worsens the economic condition

- Most of all, we need to know to what degree overpopulation is a problem - there's no doubt that China and India have too many people, but for the most part people overly exaggerate on overpopulation - What people don't realize is that we have enough resources to a significant part of our current population, I can't say for certain that we can feed everyone in China or India, but the biggest problem is the fact 1% of the world controls the wealth and there's very high disparities. We can't fucking live like this forever, eventually we will have to stop consuming excessively like we do in the west or else we will die. In fact, I find the possibility of dying for a lack of resources due to extreme capitalism far more dangerous than overpopulation itself.

Two things.  First, the hypothetical is about there being one country.  Second, your claim needs additional support, because the countries in which such a thing could be done are the countries in which each individual uses more of the world's resources.  For example, on average, a person in the U.S. uses far more resources than a person in India.

Yes, that's my point, the US has more resources therefore uses more - A country in Africa with a weak economy may have too many people but they could never support this measure due to a lack of funds. The US does not need that measure as much as India or China.

Undoubtedly, if forced sterilization were implemented, there would be people who would resist.  How is that relevant to whether it is the right decision or not in the hypothetical circumstances?  Right now, many people in the U.S. are resisting the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the legalization of same-sex marriage.  Does that mean that same-sex marriage should not be legal?

You are comparing the incomparable - Same-sex marriage is simply giving equal rights to homosexuals, but it in no way significantly affects other parties in society - Mandatory sterilization is a measure that would affect a significant number of people and it would feel awful and terrible and evil. It's just not the same. I can simply oppose same-sex marriage even on religious grounds, but gays can still get married anyway - I can't oppose sterilization because the State would force me to have it.

In this thread, I have set it up specifically for the question raised there.  I would hope that the hypothetical of this thread would not happen.  As for how realistic it is, I do not know.  Some people seem determined to not use birth control, no matter what.  But I do not know what percentage of the population they represent, and consequently do not know how likely the hypothetical in the opening post is to actually occur.  But for the purposes of this thread, I do not care what the likelihood is.  It is simply a question of how such a situation should be dealt with, if it were to come about.

I understand - I find it likely that eventually the government would have to provide benefits for those who have more or less kids etc, but I don't think it will reach this scenario - Worst case - People start having too many kids, and there's not enough jobs, social security can't provide welfare for everyone, therefore people will stop having kids or immigrate. Some people refuse to use birth control but are progressively entering an age of more educated sexual decisions - Europe, like I told you, has way less kids than 80 years ago and part of it is because we provide free contraceptives, decent education and try not to make it too taboo.

Indeed, I willfully made it idealized, in that I do not expect a single government of the world any time soon, but wanted to simplify the decision so that immigration was not an issue, and also to make it so that the decision would actually have the desired effect overall.  If, in the present world, one country curbs its population, that does not cause other countries to do likewise, and so the use of resources and effects on the environment and the likely starvation of many will not be stopped by the actions of one country in the world as it is now.

I strongly hope a one world government never happens.

[Anomalocaris]

Trying to separate the deontologists from the consequentialists?  I'll take my seat with the former.

Ultimately nothing can be right or wrong except through appeal to the desirability of its consequences.  To argue think something can be right or wrong in itself without regard to its global consequences is to shatter any pretense to relevance of the very concept of right or wrong.

[Anomalocaris]

I would rather allot freedoms to individuals to decide their family life for themselves, rather than give the government the power to maim citizens in the pursuit of the alleged greater good.

Firstly, the government has a regular habit of abusing any power it is granted, and this would be no different. Except -- the power to maim a citizen, the power to determine that citizen's family life, is such an intrusive power that abuses would help to establish tyranny.

The human species is bound for extinction anyway.  This is a brute fact.  We will die out. All struggling for survival is currently and will be meaningless because while man proposes, nature disposes. Comet, climate change, megavulcanism, microbial plague. Like well over 99.9999% of all species that have ever lived, we too shall die out. That means that draconian steps taken to forestall this inevitable dieoff are not only inhumane, they are still futile.

I would prefer to live in freedom even knowing that that freedom may be our downfall, only because I know that our downfall will happen through one means or another. Better to die free than to die a serf, sterilized by the government, cowed by authority, beaten into conformity by the fear of death.

Except the individuals are not merely deciding for themselves.  They are deciding for many others.

Basically, you prefer to live in the way you prefer by letting others die who would preferred to live, then to live in ways you don't prefer and let other also live, which they prefer.

 To argue that just because we are bound to all die, therefore we ought to be free to safeguard our optional abstract rights  for ourselves by placing at greater jeopardy sooner the lives of others is to more completely bankrupt the concept of rights.