Well actually genocide is one of the povs I was talking about, though obviously not one I would condone! And thankfully, not one people talk about much. (Though I did read a very interesting fiction book about it called 'Game Control'). Mostly just ignorant knobs, and possibly even a couple of academics who think they're being 'edgy'. I've even heard AIDS cited as having the side-benefit of keeping overpopulation down. Grr.
The ethics really comes down to the issue of individuals' reproductive rights and the extent to which it can be superceded by commmunity/global needs. And people will come down with different viewpoints on that, some saying that individuals' rights must be paramount and population control should be exercised exclusively through education; some saying that this is such a serious issue that people should acknowledge their own personal responsibility for the effect they have on the world (I suppose this is akin to global warming arguments in many ways - particularly in that the level of rights is determined by the perceived severity of the situation...).
But population control has ethical considerations beyond the founding principles; it can have bad social effects, too.
Taking for example the limit of one child, practised most famously in China: 1. Monetary disincentives of course, they don't kill the extra children. But for some poor people this is effectively forcing them to stick to the ban, whereas the rich families can afford to flout it. 2. Although rare, it has leaded to cases of genocide where the first-born was female and they wanted a son, or where further children were conceived accidentally and they couldn't afford it. If not infanticide, then certainly abandonment. 3. A culture of only children, for better or for worse! One effects of this, my housemate tells me, as that everyone is a whole lot more competitive, and they're expected to perform well as the only descendent.
no subject
The ethics really comes down to the issue of individuals' reproductive rights and the extent to which it can be superceded by commmunity/global needs. And people will come down with different viewpoints on that, some saying that individuals' rights must be paramount and population control should be exercised exclusively through education; some saying that this is such a serious issue that people should acknowledge their own personal responsibility for the effect they have on the world (I suppose this is akin to global warming arguments in many ways - particularly in that the level of rights is determined by the perceived severity of the situation...).
But population control has ethical considerations beyond the founding principles; it can have bad social effects, too.
Taking for example the limit of one child, practised most famously in China:
1. Monetary disincentives of course, they don't kill the extra children. But for some poor people this is effectively forcing them to stick to the ban, whereas the rich families can afford to flout it.
2. Although rare, it has leaded to cases of genocide where the first-born was female and they wanted a son, or where further children were conceived accidentally and they couldn't afford it. If not infanticide, then certainly abandonment.
3. A culture of only children, for better or for worse! One effects of this, my housemate tells me, as that everyone is a whole lot more competitive, and they're expected to perform well as the only descendent.