carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/20/86)
[Marc Campos] >But most responsible people do not consider meddling with other >peoples' lives as a reasonable alternative. It *is* abhorrent to >interfere with such a personal choice because the individual's right >to lead his own life is inalienable and self-justifying; it does not >belong to the state. And unless you can point out solid reasons why >some peoples' having children directly and forcibly harms other >people, you don't have a moral case. But why must having a child (an additional child) DIRECTLY and FORCIBLY harm other people for there to be any moral justification for population control through incentives or any form of coercive control? Why not if it harms others indirectly? Most libertarians and anarchists agree that an individual's natural right to lead her own life and do as she pleases stops at the point where she inflicts harm on others. "Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose." If I dump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, don't the people whom my pollution harms have the right to force me to put less in the air or to pay for the damage? Or do you take the position that everyone has the right to pollute the air and water all they want, without any interference? If everyone does so, then we have an multiperson Prisoner's Dilemma: each individual has an incentive to pollute *more* than the optimal amount, and the result will be a collectively suboptimal amount (excess) of pollution; i.e., society as a whole will be suffering greater COSTS from the pollution than it is receiving BENEFITS from allowing this amount of pollution, and yet no individual will have an incentive to reduce the amount pollution he generates, since the individual alone bears the costs of doing so, while the benefits, even though larger than the costs, are spread out over the whole society. Obviously, the consequences could be severe. There is thus a prima facie case for some sort of enforcement mechanism that would INTERNALIZE the cost of pollution, e.g., through taxes equal to the social (total) cost of the pollution (at a given level) to be paid by the polluter. Then the polluter, to maximize profit, will reduce his pollution to the collectively optimal amount. If this is unclear, please see any basic economics textbook. Now, if it is reasonable to impose a tax on a polluter, why isn't it reasonable or legitimate to impose a tax or other penalty on a family that chooses to have an "excess" child, if the *net* effect of excess children is harmful? The point is not that we can calculate the exact costs and benefits of an additional child -- clearly, we can't. The point is that there is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having another child, or attempting to change their preferences through propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net harmful effect on other people. After all, that is how we handle pollution, or should. Or do you have a better plan? Because let's get one thing straight: the potential consequences of overpopulation are catastrophic. They could well include the premature deaths of millions or billions through war, disease, or famine; and the extinction of large numbers of species, which alone would have severe consequences for humans. The potential consequences are a *severe* reduction in the quality and/or length of life for present and future generations -- we're not talking about reducing the per capita income by 1% or some other triviality. The fact must be faced that the individually optimal choice does not, in general, produce the collectively optimal outcome, except in certain special circumstances, such as the free market rather stringently defined. It seems to me that you may have fallen into the habit of overgeneralizing from the marketplace so familiar to us, and attributed market characteristics to non-market situations. There is no *a priori* reason to think that allowing individual parents to choose the number of their offspring just as they please will lead to a collectively optimal or even to a non-catastrophic outcome. >Since you've already stated that the state has the moral right to >control the lives of others... That's clearly not what I said. > If you concede that the state has the >right to control a couple's reproductive choices, then it's a small >step to say that the state has the right to force the issue with an >abortion or infantcide. In my opinion there is room for debate as to whether a state may ever legitimately *require* an abortion, and under what circumstances. But no population control advocate I know of supports infanticide as a means of population control, even though infanticide has been commonly practiced in many historical periods, including in modern Europe, as a means of "birth" control. >Your view is not very compatible with a good life for the *present* >generation of humanity. Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my >freedom to support ghosts of the future, especially for the dubious >arguments that you've cited. Calling the arguments I've presented "dubious" does not answer them, nor does it answer the arguments in favor of population control presented by other people in books and articles. You are not being asked to "give up your freedom", any more than a manufacturer is being asked to give up his freedom when he is taxed for polluting. What he loses is his freedom to pollute as much as he likes without paying for it, and you are being asked to give up the freedom to have as many children as you want, at least in some circumstances, without paying some sort of price for it. >Such population gloom-and-doom >scenarios neglect the facts that people tend to reproduce *less* as >their standard of living increases... This is known as the "demographic transition" and, far from being neglected, is well known to everyone who has even a casual knowledge of human population studies. If you wish to argue that the demographic transition will keep the earth from being overpopulated, (as Dr. Ruth would say if she heard that you were using contraceptives) terrrific. So let's hear your argument. >that the Earth still has plenty of resources and can feed its >inhabitants, Did you read the latter half of my article, in which I quoted the Ehrlichs to the effect that humanity is using up its "capital" and degrading its sources of income? If you're going to respond to my articles, please at least address the points I make, don't simply ignore them. Of course the earth still has plenty of resources, but it is not feeding its inhabitants now, although perhaps it "can". At any rate the question is what will happen in the future, not just what is the situation right now. >and that this is not the only place to live in the universe. Again, what is your plan? How many will go and when? First, it is simply false that the possibility of emigration to other planets has been neglected by "gloom-and-doomers", and second, you are merely waving your hand and saying that emigration will solve the overpopulation problem. Give me some numbers. Perhaps your great-grandfather was on the Titanic, telling everyone, "Relax, there are other ships out there somewhere". Again, if anyone replies, please send a copy by email if you want to make sure that I read it. Thank you. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
brandenberg@star.dec.com (Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy.) (08/22/86)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci,net.philosophy Path: decwrl!amdcad!amd!intelca!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo !columbia!caip!princeton!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Subject: Re: Population control Posted: 20 Aug 86 03:27:08 GMT Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept. Xref: decwrl net.politics:19076 net.sci:1587 net.philosophy:6656 A rejoinder in the spirit of American Constitutional Democracy, Laissez-faire Capitalism, and Enlightenment Metaphysics: [Richard Carnes net.sci:1587,net.politics:19076,net.philosophy:6656] >[Marc Campos] >> [...] And unless you can point out solid reasons why >>some peoples' having children directly and forcibly harms other >>people, you don't have a moral case. > >But why must having a child (an additional child) DIRECTLY and >FORCIBLY harm other people for there to be any moral justification >for population control through incentives or any form of coercive >control? Why not if it harms others indirectly? I, too, would ask the first question, answering that having a child that would directly and forcibly harm other people is not moral justification for population control. That by directing the government to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," the founding fathers intended that we indeed have a posterity, and that procreation is part-and-parcel of these blessings. This is the nature of my disagreement with you: that you have assumed, in the Great Society tradition, that you may legislate regardless of empowered authority in order to control any particular aspect of private or public life which you find efficacious to so do. That you ignore the principles set forth in the Constitution as a standard for judging the appropriateness or merit of legislative and executive action and have taken up the banner of, sometimes numerous and incompatible, sociological valuators whose validity derives from perceived benefits in the narrow area it is concerned with or the favorable academic reputations of the authors who propose it. > >Most libertarians and anarchists agree that an individual's natural >right to lead her own life and do as she pleases stops at the point >where she inflicts harm on others. Argument from authority? > "Your right to swing your fist >stops at my nose." If I dump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, >don't the people whom my pollution harms have the right to force me >to put less in the air or to pay for the damage? Or do you take the >position that everyone has the right to pollute the air and water all >they want, without any interference? If everyone does so, then we >have an multiperson Prisoner's Dilemma: each individual has an >incentive to pollute *more* than the optimal amount, and the result >will be a collectively suboptimal amount (excess) of pollution; i.e., >society as a whole will be suffering greater COSTS from the pollution >than it is receiving BENEFITS from allowing this amount of pollution, >and yet no individual will have an incentive to reduce the amount >pollution he generates, since the individual alone bears the costs of >doing so, while the benefits, even though larger than the costs, are >spread out over the whole society. Obviously, the consequences could >be severe. > >There is thus a prima facie case for some sort of enforcement >mechanism that would INTERNALIZE the cost of pollution, e.g., through >taxes equal to the social (total) cost of the pollution (at a given >level) to be paid by the polluter. Then the polluter, to maximize >profit, will reduce his pollution to the collectively optimal amount. >If this is unclear, please see any basic economics textbook. > >Now, if it is reasonable to impose a tax on a polluter, why isn't it >reasonable or legitimate to impose a tax or other penalty on a family >that chooses to have an "excess" child, if the *net* effect of excess >children is harmful? Proof by analogy or just a red herring? It is neither reasonable or legitimate by this argument. You have said: (1) Because the net effect (of pollution) is harmful, state intervention is motivated and justified. (2) Because the net effect (of excess children) is harmful, state intervention is motivated and justified. As you don't state it explicitly, I'll propose that your metaphysical principle is: IF any action is judged harmful by some criterion THEN state intervention is motivated and justified. There is no such principle in American Constitutional Law and in the specific case of procreation, and a number of other areas, state intervention is excluded by way of unalienable [sic] rights and reasonable expectations. >The point is not that we can calculate the exact costs and benefits >of an additional child -- clearly, we can't. The point is that there >is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having >another child, or attempting to change their preferences through >propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer >euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net >harmful effect on other people. After all, that is how we handle >pollution, or should. Analogy again? > Or do you have a better plan? Because let's >get one thing straight: the potential consequences of overpopulation >are catastrophic. They could well include the premature deaths of >millions or billions through war, disease, or famine; and the >extinction of large numbers of species, which alone would have severe >consequences for humans. The potential consequences are a *severe* >reduction in the quality and/or length of life for present and future >generations -- we're not talking about reducing the per capita income >by 1% or some other triviality. First, a comment on assumed consequences not limitied to the immediate question. The above follows the form of arguments in certain popular social discussions, i.e., IF current statistical trends continue THEN [undesirable/obvious/catastrophic result] The precedent is assumed as an extant fact and then focus is placed on the consequent, historical forms of this being: U.S. becomes a service economy (Naisbett/Megatrends crowd) One square yard of land per (Many from the '60's) person by 2060 Exhausted oil reserves by 1990 (") Ice caps melt flooding New York (") Inevitable nuclear war (" + 50's + 70's + 80's ) Fins are in this year (Cadillac before Khrushchev) West converted to Communism by (Any 19th century Socialist) revolution Second, I infer from your remarks that you believe no one can be trusted to making their own reproduction choices. Consider the decision process of choosing to have a child. There are motivations: simply want a child, enjoy raising a child, enjoy the creation. Motivation exists; we are here. There are also restraints: cost of raising a child, restriction of personal freedom due to commitments. For this, I'll even resort to the rhetoric which is found at such times as during detente, Vietnam, or Love Canal and that is "Who'd bring up a child in this world?" And yet, that generation and all the others have brought up children. Each individual in each generation looks at the prevailing and expected conditions and decides what to do. The attractions and detractions are weighed and, to anticipate the following remarks, a market decision is made. Some markets are the creation of man and some are natural in that the entry cost is in terms of what an individual life can provide. But any decision that a person makes which has any external manifestation is a market decision: there are no non-market decisions. > >The fact must be faced that the individually optimal choice does not, >in general, produce the collectively optimal outcome, except in >certain special circumstances, such as the free market rather >stringently defined. It seems to me that you may have fallen into >the habit of overgeneralizing from the marketplace so familiar to us, >and attributed market characteristics to non-market situations. >There is no *a priori* reason to think that allowing individual >parents to choose the number of their offspring just as they please >will lead to a collectively optimal or even to a non-catastrophic >outcome. > There is no *a priori* reason to accept collective optimization as a metaphysical axiom. I, and the framers of the Constitution, have rejected it. Period. >>Since you've already stated that the state has the moral right to >>control the lives of others... > >That's clearly not what I said. > [1] The point is that there P => ~ ~ Q is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having another child, or attempting to change their preferences through propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net harmful effect on other people [2] Because let's get one thing straight: the P potential consequences of overpopulation are catastrophic Either you just said it or the entirety of your reasoning is qualified with phrases such as "potential." > > [ an exchange on state control of reproduction ] > [ one on freedom and the pollution analogy ] > [ one on demographic transition and space, the final > frontier ] > [ ad hominem about ancestor on Titanic ] > Both sides in the quoted text have assumed that the state has the right to control population if it so chooses and, having dispensed of the question, proceeded to argue whether that right should now be exercised. I maintain that the question of governmental population control in the United States is moot: that no such power is invested in the governing bodies and that any efforts to establish such control are essentially immoral. To quote from Cato's letters, "To live securely, happily, and independently is the End and Effect of Liberty ... and real or fancied Necessity alone makes Men the Servants, Followers, and Creatures of one another." Monty Brandenberg P.S. My response to the original text has been confined mostly to the lack of grounding principle for any governmental control of population in the United States. This is in no way to be construed as agreement with the claimed factual details or their consequences in this and previous exchanges. In particular, the sufficiency and completeness of market forces in regulating decisions. P.P.S. This discussion has made a contribution to the practice of public debate by creating a new form of fallacious argument. I will call it "Truth by reason of Compromise" and it proceeds as follows: one side takes a position, the other hints at an extreme position in opposition but takes one somewhere between the two. By virtue of standing the middle ground, the position must be correct. Examples from the text: 1. But why must having a child (an additional child) ... 2. In my opinion there is room for debate as to whether a state may ever legitimately *require* an abortion, and under what circumstances. But no population control advocate I know of supports infanticide as a means of population control, even though infanticide has been commonly practiced in many historical periods, including in modern Europe, as a means of "birth" control. 3. What he loses is his freedom to pollute as much as he likes without paying for it, and you are being asked to give up the freedom to have as many children as you want, at least in some circumstances, without paying some sort of price for it. DISCLAIMER: These views do not reflect the opinions of my employer. If our views coincided, we'd make more money.
cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) (08/24/86)
In article <553@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >[Marc Campos] >>But most responsible people do not consider meddling with other >>peoples' lives as a reasonable alternative. It *is* abhorrent to >>interfere with such a personal choice because the individual's right >>to lead his own life is inalienable and self-justifying; it does not >>belong to the state. And unless you can point out solid reasons why >>some peoples' having children directly and forcibly harms other >>people, you don't have a moral case. > >But why must having a child (an additional child) DIRECTLY and >FORCIBLY harm other people for there to be any moral justification >for population control through incentives or any form of coercive >control? Why not if it harms others indirectly? > >Most libertarians and anarchists agree that an individual's natural >right to lead her own life and do as she pleases stops at the point >where she inflicts harm on others. "Your right to swing your fist >stops at my nose." If I dump tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, >don't the people whom my pollution harms have the right to force me >to put less in the air or to pay for the damage? Or do you take the >position that everyone has the right to pollute the air and water all >they want, without any interference? If everyone does so, then we >have an multiperson Prisoner's Dilemma: each individual has an >incentive to pollute *more* than the optimal amount, and the result >will be a collectively suboptimal amount (excess) of pollution; i.e., >society as a whole will be suffering greater COSTS from the pollution >than it is receiving BENEFITS from allowing this amount of pollution, >and yet no individual will have an incentive to reduce the amount >pollution he generates, since the individual alone bears the costs of >doing so, while the benefits, even though larger than the costs, are >spread out over the whole society. Obviously, the consequences could >be severe. > >There is thus a prima facie case for some sort of enforcement >mechanism that would INTERNALIZE the cost of pollution, e.g., through >taxes equal to the social (total) cost of the pollution (at a given >level) to be paid by the polluter. Then the polluter, to maximize >profit, will reduce his pollution to the collectively optimal amount. >If this is unclear, please see any basic economics textbook. > >Now, if it is reasonable to impose a tax on a polluter, why isn't it >reasonable or legitimate to impose a tax or other penalty on a family >that chooses to have an "excess" child, if the *net* effect of excess >children is harmful? > >The point is not that we can calculate the exact costs and benefits >of an additional child -- clearly, we can't. The point is that there >is nothing obviously immoral about penalizing parents for having >another child, or attempting to change their preferences through >propaganda (or public-interest advertising, if you prefer >euphemisms), if an extra child (directly or indirectly) has a net >harmful effect on other people. After all, that is how we handle >pollution, or should. Or do you have a better plan? Because let's >get one thing straight: the potential consequences of overpopulation >are catastrophic. They could well include the premature deaths of >millions or billions through war, disease, or famine; and the >extinction of large numbers of species, which alone would have severe >consequences for humans. The potential consequences are a *severe* >reduction in the quality and/or length of life for present and future >generations -- we're not talking about reducing the per capita income >by 1% or some other triviality. > >The fact must be faced that the individually optimal choice does not, >in general, produce the collectively optimal outcome, except in >certain special circumstances, such as the free market rather >stringently defined. It seems to me that you may have fallen into >the habit of overgeneralizing from the marketplace so familiar to us, >and attributed market characteristics to non-market situations. >There is no *a priori* reason to think that allowing individual >parents to choose the number of their offspring just as they please >will lead to a collectively optimal or even to a non-catastrophic >outcome. > >>Since you've already stated that the state has the moral right to >>control the lives of others... > >That's clearly not what I said. > >> If you concede that the state has the >>right to control a couple's reproductive choices, then it's a small >>step to say that the state has the right to force the issue with an >>abortion or infantcide. > >In my opinion there is room for debate as to whether a state may ever >legitimately *require* an abortion, and under what circumstances. >But no population control advocate I know of supports infanticide as >a means of population control, even though infanticide has been >commonly practiced in many historical periods, including in modern >Europe, as a means of "birth" control. > >>Your view is not very compatible with a good life for the *present* >>generation of humanity. Sorry, but I'm not willing to give up my >>freedom to support ghosts of the future, especially for the dubious >>arguments that you've cited. > >Calling the arguments I've presented "dubious" does not answer them, >nor does it answer the arguments in favor of population control >presented by other people in books and articles. You are not being >asked to "give up your freedom", any more than a manufacturer is >being asked to give up his freedom when he is taxed for polluting. >What he loses is his freedom to pollute as much as he likes without >paying for it, and you are being asked to give up the freedom to have >as many children as you want, at least in some circumstances, without >paying some sort of price for it. > >>Such population gloom-and-doom >>scenarios neglect the facts that people tend to reproduce *less* as >>their standard of living increases... > >This is known as the "demographic transition" and, far from being >neglected, is well known to everyone who has even a casual knowledge >of human population studies. If you wish to argue that the >demographic transition will keep the earth from being overpopulated, >(as Dr. Ruth would say if she heard that you were using >contraceptives) terrrific. So let's hear your argument. > >>that the Earth still has plenty of resources and can feed its >>inhabitants, > >Did you read the latter half of my article, in which I quoted the >Ehrlichs to the effect that humanity is using up its "capital" and >degrading its sources of income? If you're going to respond to my >articles, please at least address the points I make, don't simply >ignore them. Of course the earth still has plenty of resources, but >it is not feeding its inhabitants now, although perhaps it "can". At >any rate the question is what will happen in the future, not just >what is the situation right now. > >>and that this is not the only place to live in the universe. > >Again, what is your plan? How many will go and when? First, it is >simply false that the possibility of emigration to other planets has >been neglected by "gloom-and-doomers", and second, you are merely >waving your hand and saying that emigration will solve the >overpopulation problem. Give me some numbers. Perhaps your >great-grandfather was on the Titanic, telling everyone, "Relax, there >are other ships out there somewhere". > >Again, if anyone replies, please send a copy by email if you want to >make sure that I read it. Thank you. > >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes -- /'C`\ TWALG ASHALC RITMOHF. Andre Guirard ( o_o ) Botoj de timeco )) _ (( AWSWG SWVVG BWSWBSWH! ihnp4!mmm!cipher /// \\\