91av

Look after future generations vs Realise human potential

Fears that we are too many are nothing new. As long ago as 1798, the English writer Thomas Malthus warned that a growing population would eat its way through the planet’s finite resources, condemning millions to die of starvation.

We haven’t exhausted our supplies quite yet, but seven billion people later our planet’s ability to support us all comfortably does appear to be under threat. If we all lived like affluent Americans, say, resource consumption and carbon emissions would be at unsustainable levels. Given the clear and present dangers posed by climate change, how can we look after future generations without keeping half of the world’s population in poverty?

For University in Baltimore, the answer is reducing birth rates – and not in the places you might expect. When it comes to climate change, says Rieder, “my American kid is way more problematic than the many children a family might have in poor, high-birth-rate countries”. And should the worst consequences of climate change come to pass, it will be the poorest that suffer most severely. So let’s assume that the West is incapable of slashing carbon emissions or finding a technological silver bullet (see “The ethics issue: Should we geoengineer the planet?“). In this case, we are obliged to explore all options, including the taboo subject of population control. “It’s the one variable we haven’t been prepared to talk about, but if we could reduce fertility, it would have a powerful effect on emissions,” says Rieder.

“If we all lived like affluent Americans, the impact would be unsustainable”

Most people are uneasy about any intrusion on people’s right to choose how many kids they have. Rieder points out, though, our rights get limited by the interests of others all the time. Why should procreative rights be any different?

Historically, however, attempts to limit our numbers have often led to abuses. The stain of forced sterilisations and abortions performed to satisfy China’s one-child policy is hard to shift. to have fewer children, such as giving everyone access to the education and resources they need to make informed decisions. Few would argue against that.

More interesting is the middle ground. How about a tax on families with more than two kids, for example, incentivising people to change their preference? You would have to tread carefully, says Rieder, given the harm you could cause children by removing resources. And while public information campaigns sound less problematic in theory, the reality is not so clear-cut. As University in Washington DC has pointed out, women are already widely held responsible for family size, so making it a moral issue would only add to their burden. If norms on family size shift, she says, you will see a backlash against women who have more children than is deemed responsible.

Then again, maybe we’re missing the point. If the problem is too many of us living at the same time, why not limit lifespan instead of birth rate? Billions of dollars are spent each year on research aimed at extending our lives, but those golden years are only making things worse for others. Perhaps the ethical thing to do would be to divert those funds elsewhere.

This article appeared in print under the headline “Should we… Impose population controls?”