![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jack(i) Will we at some point have to control reproduction? I think so. I see it as a right, but as all rights, only insofar as it doesn't infringe other people too far. As I'm not especially interested in children at the moment, I probably see it as less important than some, but all I'm asserting is that it isn't absolute.
If you accept that, where do you stop? If the earth supports nothing but human life and plankton for them to eat? What if those NN billion lived a lot grottier lives than a smaller M billion, could you justify stopping then? I'd be inclined the think so, but know other people would disagree.
(ii) How? Well, in Europe, we practically have. In the UK the brith rate is greater than the death rate but only just, iirc. OTOH, making it so is awful. China shows the problems with forcing it socially. Most people currently find forcing sterilisation on anyone repugnent. And any government deciding what to breed has horrendous opportunity for abuse.
Could it in theory be forced? How about vascectomising all men and freezing their sperm? How far is that beyond us? Cut out all the unintended pregnancies, even if you don't restrict use at all.
(iii) But then look at Science Fiction to see how we *might* view the problem. On Bujold's Beta Colony you need a license to have your contraceptive implant removed. This is portrayed as unsatisfactory but a reasonable approach. In Niven's future earth everyone is routinely sterilised somehow, and that's just normal, but people disagree about who is given birthrights to. I think the system by Ringworld time had stopped penalising people with minor physical defects, and gave everyone one birthright, with others given to the especially strong, intellegent, rich, lucky, etc.
(iv) Do you have the right at all to choose who might be born? Sterilising existing people is a different problem imho because it hurts them, and hence is bad, but what if you could screen gametes, for isntance. Surely any birth is represents trillions of potential people not being born: however wonderful people they might have been, you can't wish they all existed. Now I exist, I'd fight anyone trying to take that away, and probably so would my family. But if they'd had a diffirent child, could I blame them? No.
[1] The metaphor, and the problems with eugenics, especially with equating "doesn't have minor medical problems" with "good" got written out, but it was amusing, so reproduced here. Imagine you're on the foothills of everest and wish to ascend. To facilitate this, you kill everyone who descends. You remain stuck on top of a local maximum. Beware breeding when you don't know what you're breeding for, it may backfire.
If you accept that, where do you stop? If the earth supports nothing but human life and plankton for them to eat? What if those NN billion lived a lot grottier lives than a smaller M billion, could you justify stopping then? I'd be inclined the think so, but know other people would disagree.
(ii) How? Well, in Europe, we practically have. In the UK the brith rate is greater than the death rate but only just, iirc. OTOH, making it so is awful. China shows the problems with forcing it socially. Most people currently find forcing sterilisation on anyone repugnent. And any government deciding what to breed has horrendous opportunity for abuse.
Could it in theory be forced? How about vascectomising all men and freezing their sperm? How far is that beyond us? Cut out all the unintended pregnancies, even if you don't restrict use at all.
(iii) But then look at Science Fiction to see how we *might* view the problem. On Bujold's Beta Colony you need a license to have your contraceptive implant removed. This is portrayed as unsatisfactory but a reasonable approach. In Niven's future earth everyone is routinely sterilised somehow, and that's just normal, but people disagree about who is given birthrights to. I think the system by Ringworld time had stopped penalising people with minor physical defects, and gave everyone one birthright, with others given to the especially strong, intellegent, rich, lucky, etc.
(iv) Do you have the right at all to choose who might be born? Sterilising existing people is a different problem imho because it hurts them, and hence is bad, but what if you could screen gametes, for isntance. Surely any birth is represents trillions of potential people not being born: however wonderful people they might have been, you can't wish they all existed. Now I exist, I'd fight anyone trying to take that away, and probably so would my family. But if they'd had a diffirent child, could I blame them? No.
[1] The metaphor, and the problems with eugenics, especially with equating "doesn't have minor medical problems" with "good" got written out, but it was amusing, so reproduced here. Imagine you're on the foothills of everest and wish to ascend. To facilitate this, you kill everyone who descends. You remain stuck on top of a local maximum. Beware breeding when you don't know what you're breeding for, it may backfire.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 01:54 pm (UTC)Of course you can force it. Chemicals in the drinking water. We appear to be trying that too.
I think you have at most the right within reason to decide who is born *to you*, _pace_ obvious health and social problems like widespread gender imbalance. If you want to influence who is born to other people do it by persuasion. Otherwise it's a slippery slope to prohibiting gypsy babies.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 02:22 pm (UTC)I did include people choosing not to in controlling, as what we actually do do. You're right, hopefully if everyone has a decent standard of living, overreproduction won't be a problem, though I wouldn't like to say so for certain.
Chemicals in the drinking water. We appear to be trying that too.
We are?
And I was thinking of safe methods. Are there reversible treatments which no-one is allergic (or whatever) to? There's been enough of a fuss about fluourine in water, which seems sensible, I wouldn't like to try putting hormones in.
. If you want to influence who is born to other people do it by persuasion. Otherwise it's a slippery slope to prohibiting gypsy babies.
Indeed, the vast potential for abuse was a main reason for my objecting to it. It's possible that no restrictions on reproduction could ever be practical.
But I'm still considering the right may be overrated. It's important, yes, but so are other things. For instance, what if we could prevent children being born to people who aren't really ready to look after them? Sometimes it turns out very well, and I hate infringing any right, but there do seem good arguments for doing so, if it *were* physically and politically possible.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 02:34 pm (UTC)Plastics leach oestrogen-simulants into the water (and indeed oestrogen from the Pill turns up there too); suspected of being a possible factor in declining sperm counts, and known to fuck with fish gender.
No, there are no universally safe, convenient, reversible contraceptives. (And how long is it since we put a man on the moon?) The ones that come closest tend to work best with the co-operation of the user.