Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Population control
Section E. Social, moral and religious

Unlimited population growth cannot be a good thing; Thomas Malthus pointed out 200 years ago that the human capacity for reproduction could disastrously overtake the resources available to mankind. The debate now is whether we are heading for a ’Malthusian’ disaster, and whether measures to avoid it should be ’soft’ (education of women, economic growth) or ’hard’ (promotion of free contraceptives, abortion, penalties for large families, etc.). A Proposition team that ducks the second type and sticks only to soft measures does not deserve to win this debate. The classic example of a successful population control regime is that in China, the ’one-child policy’; in recent years, however, this has been relaxed, questioning its relevance for the modern age.

Pros

[1] Malthus argued that human reproductive potential was geometric (1-2-48-16, etc.) while growth in resources was only arithmetic (1-2-3-4-5, etc.). Eventually a disparity between the two will end in crisis, such as war over resources, famine, malnutrition, epidemic disease and environmental devastation.

Such tragedies are clearly identifiable today and are sure to become worse unless steps are taken to limit population growth. We owe it to future generations to give them a chance of existence free from malnutrition, poverty and so on.

[2] There are, of course, other global problems, but population control still needs addressing; problems of inequality are often exacerbated by those of overpopulation. Human prosperity and happiness and the environment are all affected.

[3] Many different means exist to restrict population, but it is not necessary to compel individuals to undergo vasectomies, abortions, contraceptive injections, and so on. Instead, governments can apply economic pressure on those with large families, as in China where second and subsequent children disqualify families from a range of state benefits. Contraception can be distributed widely and cheaply (often a big issue in Africa), and educational programmes can enthusiastically promote the advantages of small families. Moreover, governments can do more to provide better provision for parents in old age, which will reduce the incentive for people to have lots of children to support them when they retire.

[4] Restricting population growth has other spin-offs, particularly the empowerment of women, who can be given control of reproduction. This allows them to pursue education and job opportunities, as well as better health and longer life expectancy. The spread of sexually transmitted diseases is contained when condoms are more widely used.

[5] The reason that sons are more highly valued is that they go out to work, whereas daughters are baby-making machines. Population control measures will increase women’s economic value by freeing them from a life of child rearing to go to work. In turn, this will lessen the preference for male offspring.

Cons

[1] Malthus predicted a major population crisis in the mid-nineteenth century, but none came. In the 1970s, the neo- Malthusian book The Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows predicted further catastrophe, also erroneously. Most disasters are caused by ideological or ethnic rivalry, poor government management of resources (famine) or greed (which causes much environmental devastation, such as the Bangladeshi floods). It is difficult to prove any link between natural disasters and overpopulation.

[2] The real problem is not rapid population growth, but inequitable distribution of resources between a rich Northern hemisphere and a much poorer South. More urgent priorities that need to be addressed are different and fairer trade and development policies. An end to EU agricultural protectionism would greatly aid Africa, for example, while the large quantities of meat eaten in richer countries currently require a much less productive use of agricultural land than if our diets were more vegetarian.

[3] Attempts to limit population growth have ignored basic human rights, with state intervention (e.g. China, with its one-child policy) or attacking deeply held religious beliefs (Catholicism and Islam) through promoting contraception and therefore, by implication, relaxed sexual morality. Such measures are often deeply unpopular within societies on which they are imposed, and only totalitarian governments (such as China) are able to implement them. The state has no right to interfere with people’s family lives.

[4] If our aim is the empowerment of women, then legislating against families of more than one child, for example, seems entirely counterproductive. Such a measure radically reduces the control of women over their reproductive life. It is certainly a good idea to increase the availability of condoms and provide education on safe sex and STDs, but that does not mean that we should make contraception (or sterilisation, or one-child families) compulsory. This would be an unacceptable constraint on personal freedom.

[5] In societies that value male children more than female children, this would lead to selective abortions and the abandonment of baby girls, as parents will want to make sure that their one child is a boy.

Possible motions

This House would introduce one-child policies across the developing world.

This House would tie aid to population control.

This House believes that Malthus was right.

Related topics

Abortion on demand

Euthanasia, legalisation of

Marriage

Sex education

Contraception for under-age girls