The 'right' to have children and overpopulation

Post Reply New Topic

I've been thinking about this for some time, and now found a good article to back things up.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release11Jul08.htm

It is considered a fundamental human right for people to be able to “determine freely and responsibly the number and timing of their children” (UN, 1968).

However, as the article outlines, this 'right' impacts upon 'rights' of other people with respect to freedom and quality of life.

There are several different points here that are interesting.

Firstly, what are these 'rights'? They are not externally derived (at least for those non-religious amongst us), which means it is up to us to define them (and their accompanying responsibilities, which are often conveniently forgotton).

Secondly, ignoring the question of what 'rights' really mean. If we consider that reproduction is an essential human right (founding a family, as the article puts it), and from an evolutionary perspective it could be considered as important as the right to life, then are there limitations to this right? Given the overpopulation that the world is experiencing, is the right to procreate more important than the right to have enough resources to live?

I support a (maxiumum) 2 child policy for everyone (voluntary, not enforced) and I cannot see why anyone should have a problem with this. From a cynical point of view, having kids can be seen as the most selfish thing any of us can do - after all, we are reproducing our own genes. This selfishness is natural obviously, but in an overpopulated world, creating more than the replacement rate of children is particularly self-interested and irresponsible. I do think a one child policy, although great for the environment, would be going too far. Not only does this have negative economic consequences, and social consequences of having a population of children with no siblings, but would almost certainly not take on in a voluntary way and would require strict enforcement to work (as China). Two children is reasonable as the replacement rate, both of individuals and of genes, and as some people would have one or no children, population would decrease in a measured way.

I recently read a BBC news article (sorry no link) which interviewed several mothers of large families who all indignantly said that of course they didnt think of the environmental impact of having children, as though that would have been a ridiculous thing to think about. This attitude really needs to change. People who have had more than 2 kids already, feel attacked when you suggest a 2 child policy, even though noone is suggesting applying it retroactivally. I understand that there are some people who desire large families, however, there are always unwanted children (often with behavoral disorders or handicaps) for adoption, and if someone wanting a large family is unwilling to help these kids, then I have no sympathy for their desire for more children.

Enforcing such a policy is difficult - the only acceptable way is voluntarily through education. Economic disincentives will hurt the innocent children born, and even social disapproval would have negative consequences on the extra children (like that experienced by children of non-married parents in the past). I guess this ends up being an argument between individual freedoms and the rights of societies.

When I said to a friend that one reason I was thinking of not having children at all was due to environmental consequences, he told me that I was 'the sort of person who SHOULD be having children', as though I (being educated and generally responsible) was somehow better than certain other people. I very much disagree with this, but it does raise an important question, because education does already correlate negatively with number of children and a voluntary 2 child policy would increase this effect (unlike a strictly enforced one). But is this even a problem?

Until people get over the prejudices and medical problems of eating each other this will present difficulties.

I prefer voluntary restrictions... the only enforceable restriction I would think would be apt is that a parent cannot claim more than two children as dependents on an income tax return... not placing a tax on more children like China does, but just slightly altering the incentive...

One notable aspect of the overpopulation issue, however, is that population is mostly increasing in third world countries while it is only modestly increasing (or even decreasing) in fully developed countries... The economic benefits to children in industrialized nations do not manifest until 20-25 years after birth, and are a considerable investment, whereas a child in an undeveloped country can become a laborer within 5-6 years. In fact, the US is the only fully industrialized nation with a considerable population gain occuring... China only experiences significant growth in undeveloped areas (where the one-child policy is not as enforced), while many other industrialized nations are actually in population decline...

Another factor lowering the birth rate in industrialized nations is the higher level of education and the use of contraceptives, which allows people to have sex without necessarily producing a child afterwards...

Therefore, I put forth that the solution to the current population crisis (and quite a lot of other problems plaguing the world) is to invest significant amounts of resources into developing and maintaining education and infrastructure for otherwise undeveloped countries around the world...

I'm an evolutionist, so I support freedom of reproduction. I don't think that the state should financially support big families though. kids should be for the rich.

Two children per family is a perfectly reasonable limit, I think. People shouldn't have the "right" to go procreating willy-nilly at the expense of everyone's well-being.

Although I agree that somehow population is killing the world the enforcement of limited children presents certain alternatives that seem problematical. Do you sterilize everybody who has had two children? Do you permit people with children who exhibit extraordinary abilities to have more than two children? How do you punish people who have more than two children? What do you do with these "illegal" children? What about abortions? Do you hold lotteries for permission to have children? How do you deal with immigrants who come to the country with more than two children? And what happens to those extra children? That's only the beginning.

Last edited by Sand on 18 Apr 2009, 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's too problematic to control, and I really feel it violates reproductive rights to tell couples what they can do with their bodies according to the law. I plan on having two biological children, then adopting some more, but I would never sneer at another family's decision to have more than two children, it's none of my business.

Education, literacy, social prosperity, and overt hedonism seem to be very effective at keeping the population under control.

Ignorance, illiteracy, poverty, and extreme conservatism seems to bank a population toward overgrowth.

Prosprous countries that enjoy widespread liberalism and a very high rate of male and female literacy seem to have very well-contained populations. They often need to take initiatives just to keep their population growth from being in decline. I point you to Scandanavia.

I don't think that the fact that population is stable or even decreasing in developed countries, but increasing in developing countries, means we can avoid culpability and say its up to these countries to sort out their population problems whilst we can continue doing as we like. Europe at least is vastly overpopulated for the amount of resources each individual uses. Sustainable farming in the UK would only feed about a third of its current population. We are happily using the resources of third world countries, but condemn them for their high birth rate, even though each individual person there is using only a small fraction of the resources that we do. I don't think it is fair to try and limit them to 2 children each unless we do it ourselves - we may be able to support financially more children, but this is simply down to unequal distribution of resources, and exploiting this is morally dubious (even though we do it every day).

Also, I do not wish migration to come into this discussion. The problem is a global one, not simply down to individual countries. Most people in Europe look on migration as the problem of overcrowding and lack of resources (esp. jobs) in their country, but just shoving these people out and somewhere else is not a global solution. It would only become relevant for a completely isolated and self sufficient country.

I did vote for the voluntary position - I put this forward initially and needed to put down something to see the poll results, but it seems rather unsatisfactory now i have thought about this further. The main problem being that many (most?) people are not reasonable. In particular, those who are strongly religious would not follow the voluntary code. This would over time lead to a reduction in population amongst the more liberal people, and an increase in fundamentalists, who as they gain majority would abolish the voluntary code anyway, thus undermining the population reduction that would have been achieved (and probably making life rather miserable for the remaining non-religious too).

So effectively the choice seems to be either strict control, which would almost certainly result in forced sterilization and a huge loss of personal freedom, or no control (as we see), which leads to out of control populations, war, famine and suffering on a huge scale. Given that the latter will almost certainly happen anyway, maybe we shouldn't even bother doing anything to try and delay it, and just get the massive population crash (by whatever means) over and done with as soon as possible.

But what about the other rights that are violated by overpopulation? Why do you think reproductive rights are more important?

True, but I think these initiatives are misplaced. Most European countries are overpopulated given the amount of natural, sustainable resources that they have. Reduction in population size may cause economic problems, but they will be nothing compared to the resource-scarce future that awaits. Given our increased life expectancies and health, I think it is more reasonable for people to work longer before retirement, and to work to the best of their ability, even if disabled. Retirement is a privelige that people have come to expect and demand, but most people do not pay enough taxes during their working life to finance all the education, health and pension benefits that they receive and we cannot keep depending on an expanding population to do this for us. Certainly, we should care for the sick, but people should be more responsible for themselves if healthy and not expect 30 or 40 years of state-financed retirement as their due after 40 year's work.

I'm split between "Yes, as long as its voluntary" and "Yes, and it should be strictly enforced to prevent environmental catastrophy", but voted for the first one in this poll.

I think the first thing we must overcome is our mentality towards reproduction. I mean, not even do societies attempt to hinder population growth, they actually encourage it through various laws and policies.

I agree that population must shrink or remain stagnant, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to bring about this.

I voted for Yes, and it should be strictly enforced to prevent environmental catastrophy because the resources of the earth remain the same despite the exploding number of people. Allowing the levels of population to continue increasing at this rate will only lead to higher levels of violence, suffering, and death. To me, that is more cruel than denying a couple a “right” to a third child.

Fair trade with developing countries will eventually lead them to a greater level of social prosperity. Commerce and cultural diffusion with the West has done wonders for the East Asian economies, and their culture will overshadow ours in time. Eventually, they will outsource more dignifying work to poorer countries.

Then it's a good thing they don't.

Because they need the money. It's not like ethical governments allow these resources to just be taken from them.

Because they are poor. They can't even afford things that we consider to be necessities. They would be even poorer if we stopped trading with them, though.

Actually, a lot of developing countries are rich in natural resources. This is where they get their money. However, I think it is time we gently nudged the Chinese to adopt more ethical standards in their trade. The Chinese apparently don't yet follow the same ideals regarding 'fair trade' as the West does, but their economy has become large enough to sustain (and all the more justify) more responsible practices. If the global economy were NOT so interdependent, though, there would be absolutely nothing we could do to this effect.

Actually, the Chinese have already begun doing this sort of thing. The project has been an utter failure. They would have been better off embracing Western hedonism .

Or we could simply continue pouring money into the sciences, so we can get most of what we need from the sun and the sky.

http://www.physorg.com/news96107693.html

I mostly agree with ThisisjusthowItalk's comments.

Reproduction is below the replacement rate in many Western countries, so legislating it is simply an unnecessary restriction. History shows us that more prosperous societies tend towards smaller family sizes, so if we help developing nations along any problems of "excessive" reproduction should go away.

I'm a third child, by the way.

IMO completely unnecessary as a social movement and not even thinkable regarding government intervention.

The population growth we've had is mostly from the baby boom, that generational bubble came from habits of necessity from the past (ie. have 10 kids because 8 will never reach maturity) and the technology that greatly reduced infant mortality. Also, women joined the workforce largely because having only two kids meant more time available to do other things. Technology destroyed most of the lucrative manual labor positions, women joined the workforce, and with all of these things together it also means that anyone who's having kids will have a huge expense also trying to educate them and possibly even pay their way through college (or take care of them until they can get a good enough job to take care of themselves). I've been reading a book by George Friedman called 'The Next 100 Years' and he cited that global birth rates are dropping - not just the U.S., not just Europe; everywhere. You also have to figure that the replacement birthrate as the baby boomers start coming of age and dying - it'll be a bit better than 2.2 per couple; likely closer to 3 per couple. In that situation sure, you'll always have Nadia Suleiman's and the religiously convicted of the world, who'll be easily outmatched by the amount of parents who have 2 children, one child, in the case of potential parents - sometimes none.

As far as government intervention into any kind of crisis, even legitimate, very bad and very much something that should be last resort. Especially when you talk about your personal life - when you ask government to play parent for adults and set the rules of living it comes at a high cost in terms of civil liberties and of course does its part at raking us over coals on April 15th every year. Since its already a non-crisis it would be unthinkable to ask for government involvement - unless a person wants government to grow for its own sake which is an entirely different set of motives.