~Somewhat belatedly continuing my bioethics lecture analyses, today’s topic is population control. The other reproductive technologies I’ve previously discussed are largely available only in developed nations (i.e. screening), although some are becoming increasingly available in developing nations (i.e. gender selection). But population control is different, and has been a bioethical issue among human societies for…well, as long as there have been human societies.
Most developed nations are experiencing declines in growth, and some are in fact experiencing a decrease in population. The reasons for this have to do with smaller family sizes, emigration, and economic changes. Although zero or negative population growth results in an aging population and subsequent economic headaches, this is not the focus of my analysis today although I did discuss it earlier with regards to Japan. [Although, the question of whether or not growth, in both the population and the economy, is always a good thing is in fact a very good question.]
These days, population control issues are largely confined to developing nations, as a result of improvements in hygiene and medicine that have not (yet) been matched with a decrease in birthrates. In these nations, population control is a question of scarce resources. Burgeoning populations, particularly China and India, are already placing tremendous stress on available resources and services, as well as catastrophic environmental degradation and pollution resulting in health issues and long-term socioeconomic problems.
The key bioethical question when discussing population control is: How can we reconcile human rights with any coercive policy of population control, especially in developing nations? Some question the need for any controls, pointing out that the Malthusian disaster of global famine has been averted again and again as a result of technological improvements leading to increased food production. But although food is a key limiter of population, it is not the only resource humans consume; water shortages, for example, are predicted to be a major problem in the next few decades. Access to medicine and medical care, especially in a time where global travel can allow pandemics to quickly spread, is another limited resource. Jobs and limited economic opportunity may also prove scarce, which can lead to mass unrest. These challenges and others have convinced some people and nations that population control is necessary.
I don’t think most people (except perhaps the “be fruitful and multiply” fundamentalist crowd) have any problem with long-term efforts to reduce birthrates. For example, the most reliable method of decreasing the birth rate of a nation in the long term is the education and empowerment (via economic opportunities and availability of birth control) of women. This will almost always decrease birth rates…but it takes time, and with the population of some nations rising so rapidly, it may not be fast enough to prevent the problems mentioned above.
The bioethical problems begin when such national (and possibly global) methods of population control become coercive. As with so many of the reproductive technologies I’ve discussed, international conventions on population control are either unclear or nonexistent. From what I can tell, this seems to be because international discussions on population control inevitably devolve into arguments over contraceptives (opposed by conservative Muslim and Catholic nations and the Catholic Church) and abortion laws. Unfortunately, these disagreements have so far prevented a truly global dialog on population control in the context of individual nations or the planet as a whole.
The quintessential example of coercive population control is the “One Child" policy enacted by the People’s Republic of China in 1979. With extensive propaganda and the motto “later, longer, fewer”, it aimed to stymie that nation’s rapidly rising population, particularly in urban areas, by levying fines on families that had more than one child (for a full history of the policy, see here). The policy seems to have been successful (although not as successful as predicted) in reducing long-term population growth and is slowly being dismantled, but it has resulted in two problems:
-
Human rights violations ranging from infanticide, forced sterilizations and abortions, and underreporting of births resulting in “undocumented” people.
-
Potential unrest caused by an aging population, gender imbalances (since the policy favors boys), and ethnic & socioeconomic discrimination in the way the policy is enacted.
In a political sense, such unrest might be perceived by Westerners as a good thing, (since it may result in an increased democratization of China), but it does show that this sort of coercive population control is not without its flaws. Such a policy can only be achieved by an authoritarian government such as that of China; conspiracy theories aside, such a policy is very unlikely to be enacted in a democracy without major political upheaval (i.e. no more democracy).
But such changes are not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility, especially in a poisonous political environment where a segment of society is targeted as causing problems or taking up too much resources. To the Nazis, it was Jews, Gypsies, gays, etc.; in the American south, it was blacks; in America today, hatred is directed at undocumented immigrants and their fictitious “anchor babies”; tomorrow, when robots do most of the work, it might be the unemployed masses.
I’m reminded of one of my favorite science-fiction stories from when I was younger: Invitation to the Game by Monica Hughes. Most of the main characters are the children of unemployed people, and because there are no jobs for them, they too become “unemployeds”, confined to an urban ghetto. Early in the novel, the protagonist reads a newspaper article in which a senator calls for the sterilization of the unemployed.
But I don’t think things will go that far, at least not for a while. Although I believe that educating women and increasing access to birth control are better solutions to long-term population pressures, I recognize that my perspective is shaped (some might say warped) by the fact that I live in a wealthy developed nation. In the meantime, we must ask ourselves how to reconcile human rights with the issue of population control. Consider the following questions:
-
Imagine you live in a developing nation with a rapidly rising population and extreme inequality. Would you support/obey a one-child policy, if it meant that your family could only have one child?
-
Assume that a chemical is developed that, when added to drinking water, decreases fertility rates by, say, 50% with no other harmful side effects. Would it be ethical for the state to (publicly) add this chemical to drinking water, just like we do now with fluoride? What about in developing nations?
-
Imagine you are a delegate to an international meeting intended to craft a convention on what is and isn’t ethically acceptable as a means of population control. What methods, if any, would you support? Which would you oppose? Imagine you’re the delegate from Russia (growth: –0.19%/yr). Now imagine you’re from Liberia (+4.5%/yr). How might your decisions be different?
-
Is coercive population control ever ethically acceptable? On a national level? On a global level? Why or why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment