5 ms·

Why is population control inherently wrong? sustainable envrionment and forever exploding population is a pair of inherently conflicting goals, at least while w

Why is population control inherently wrong? sustainable envrionment and forever exploding population is a pair of inherently conflicting goals, at least while we still only inhabit earth. We have to acknowledge there is a maximum which this planet can handle. Even if we do regard having children as a very personal right, we must acknowledge the collective effect is not within our control, not in the near future.

chongli 6y ago
This is "population control" targeted at a specific ethnic and religious minority, not population control in general. China is trying to crowd out the Uighur population by settling ethnic Han Chinese from elsewhere in the country and by imprisonment and forced sterilization of the population. This campaign meets the UN criteria for genocide.
- beaunative 6y ago
  It was very clear that the one child policy targeted the whole population, and ethnic minorities are generally allowed more leeway than Han Chinese.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    China's Uighur policy isn't "One family one child." It's sterilization, so that Uighur families can't have children. EDIT: HN won't let me respond, probably due to the automatic moderation controls kicking in on this article, so here's an example of the forced sterilization policy indiscriminately targeting all Uighur women: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/04/muslim-minority-teacher-50-tells-of-forced-sterilisation-in-xinjiang-china https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/04/muslim-minorit...
    - beaunative 6y ago
      Where did you read that? If I read it correctly, they used sterilization on couples who already have children at the limit allowed. I won't call it can't
    - scilro 6y ago
      But the question is, _why?_ What's their incentive to apply more cruel population control on one ethnic group over others? We're talking about a repressive government, but not a race-based regime like Nazi Germany was. Indeed from their own propaganda they seem like they bend over backward to trumpet the well-being of their ethnic minorities, and you'll hear of cases of the Great Firewall censoring outpourings of nationalist/racist sentiment. The more boring explanation is the simpler one I think; that they're bringing policies toward minorities in line with policies toward the majority -- i.e. ending a form of "affirmative action" they used to have. You can argue that population control of _any_ kind is wrong and cruel, and I think that's a totally defensible argument, but there's a rhetorical sleight of hand going on here where people equate China's controversial population control measures (that have been ongoing for decades) with the elimination of a particular ethnic minority, Nazi-style.
      - chongli 6y ago
        But the question is, _why?_ What's their incentive to apply more cruel population control on one ethnic group over others? It's a culture- and religion-based form of oppression. The ethnic Uighur people are Muslims, for the most part. They form a distinct subculture within China. The Communist Party sees their nonconformity as a threat to social harmony. That's why, in addition to forced sterilization and forced birth control, the government has imposed forced re-education in concentration camps. Their goal is to destroy the Uighur population's distinctiveness as a subculture in China. It is deliberate ethnocide (by forced internment) and genocide (by reproductive suppression).
        scilro 6y ago
        I understand that's the claim, but on the other hand, the biggest Muslim ethnic group (Hui) aren't repressed. Which makes you ask, what's the difference between Uyghurs and other Muslim minority groups like the Hui? Well, the biggest as far as I can tell is the influx of new, extremist ideologies like Wahhabism that are actually quite _incompatible_ with the indigenous culture. The reasons why that happened seem complex, but maybe you can say it's an unfortunate outcome of US and Russian meddling in the region over decades. It's absolutely true that there's increased security and surveillance targeted at Uyghurs in the region, I've seen a lot of videos taken by travelers from the area that confirm that. There's also a coordinated and systemic program of re-education, as admitted by Chinese authorities. I'm sure there is a non-zero amount of abuses as part of this whole program, but I don't think that's the same thing as genocide. & I think the stated reason in their propaganda for _why_ this is all happening passes the smell test... Otherwise, wouldn't they be repressing Hui Muslims as well? (Also see Tibet -- people said the same thing about Tibetan culture 20 years ago, but it's pretty well-understood now that there were foreign-funded separatist elements back then)
    - TheOperator 6y ago
      While sterilization has jumped up several times, one cannot actually effectively commit a genocide by performing sterilization operations on an entire population. Most of what's going on is coercion and soft power.
dgellow 6y ago
There is a quite strong correlation between level of education and number of birth per women. The best way to "control" population growth is to give easy access to a good education and birth control solutions (I mean condoms and the pill). No coercion required.
- jbay808 6y ago
  That's true, but this is also an attempt to a moral question with a pragmatic empirical answer. The problem with this is the data can always change. How would your opinion change if that correlation were found to disappear in the coming decades? Or if it actually began to reverse (for example as populations shift to being more urban where kids are expensive and access to assisted reproduction depends on wealth)?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dgellow 6y ago
    I don't know.
- beerandt 6y ago
  I'm opining/arguing that if you make this statement: >The best way to "control" population growth is... Then provide some level of govt incentive to reach that goal, it's still coercion (or if you prefer, manipulation), even if the incentive is 1st order positive effects, and the stated goal/result is a 2nd or 3rd order effect. Thinking about it, I keep coming back to preditory lending/selling tactics or dark-pattern manipulation (except the UI is your life choices) as comparisons, but I haven't worked out exactly why, yet, other than it bothers me in a similar way. Moreso, since it's government.
  - endominus 6y ago
    That's a rather strange position to hold. It brings in issues related to both the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons. To whit, each individual reproductive group may desire more offspring, but each successively larger generation consumes more resources. Given a (for the foreseeable future) finite amount of resources, unrestricted population expansion is net harmful to society as a whole, even as large families may be beneficial (i.e. result in greater happiness) for individual groups. It's a coordination problem. Everyone wants to act in the way that maximizes their happiness/success/utility, but in doing so acts in a net-negative way. One of the premier purposes of government is to solve coordination problems. Why is it unethical for the government to solve this coordination problem? Or, more concretely, why does my right to have a dozen children trump my children's right to have sufficient resources left to them to live a happy life?
godelski 6y ago
So I was going to reply to the parent but after thinking a little more I think I have a better good faith interpretation. I think they used "coercion" instead of "persuasion" because it is a stronger word (implying forcing or threatening). So if we read their comment that way I don't think they disagree with you or would be against even encouraging things like planed births and making birth control widely available.
- beaunative 6y ago
  You might not be wrong. Though after rereading it, I'm convinced that it was suggested in that comment popluation control is wrong regardless. Note the paragraph on education. So in that framework, providing education with the intention of reducing birth would be unethical. How moderate or non-coercive of a means are we talking about?
  - godelski 6y ago
    That's true, but hard to tell when the person hasn't responded. I tend to try (key word) to use the strongest form of someone's argument (not that I think you're talking about their weakest form). But what I was originally going to say is that the language gets really fuzzy really fast. Like you could argue that sex education is a form of persuasion (though I wouldn't say coercion) and is easily argued as a form of population control. But I think many of us would call that beneficial. I'd say the same with free/cheap and easy access to forms of birth control. I'd say that enables more choice. But if we're talking about a counseling center that guilt trips someone into having the child or not having the child I'd call that coercion and I don't think that's right. But others would call that persuasion and education. So I think this gets messy really quick and a bit of expanding on the thought for clarification is needed.
- beerandt 6y ago
  I'm not ideologically opposed to contraception, for what it's worth. I used the word "coercion" intentionally, although it's not exactly right. Just as "coercion" implies "force or threatening," "persuasion" implies an "un-forced, freely-made choice." And that is a big part of what I'm questioning depending on particular circumstances. At what level of deception or trickery or lies-of-omission, does the free-choice become the illusion-of-choice? Hypothetically, in Xinjiang, if (and I get that this is an extremely unlikely "if" for obvious reasons) if we presume the actions are exactly the same (provide/offer/compel education), and the end results are exactly the same (results in suppressed Uighur birthrate, but educated), Then does the government's good or bad intent matter? What's the difference between these scenarios, if 1) China govt being honest and trying raise the QoL in Xinjiang to be equal with the rest of China, or 2) China govt lying, and using education as a pretense because of the low birthrate result that they desire?
Alkhwarizmi 6y ago
Who are you to decide who gets to live or not!? Population control of any kind must be made illegal.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
friendlybus 6y ago
It's wrong because we own our own bodies. The confict of expanding humanity does not go away when you manage the population, people will want to expand. Giving the state arbitrary powers to limit population growth is a form of violence. Having a state sactioned sterilization on excess children is just as horrific as a war, without any of the spoils of war. The problem lies in the fact that the gov is the last body left to resolve our deepest conflicts as we are no longer free to commit acts of violence on our own behalf. Making it through life used to be materially difficult and death was far more common. Living in our current heaven-like atmosphere has far darker implications for the age-old conflicts.
exabrial 6y ago
Historically when governments have executed it the concept has ended in genocide? I'm not trying to accuse you of ill intent or supporting such a position, but once a government is given these tools the inevitable outcome has been such once the willing political party takes power.

chongli 6y ago

This is "population control" targeted at a specific ethnic and religious minority, not population control in general. China is trying to crowd out the Uighur population by settling ethnic Han Chinese from elsewhere in the country and by imprisonment and forced sterilization of the population. This campaign meets the UN criteria for genocide.

beaunative 6y ago
It was very clear that the one child policy targeted the whole population, and ethnic minorities are generally allowed more leeway than Han Chinese.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  China's Uighur policy isn't "One family one child." It's sterilization, so that Uighur families can't have children. EDIT: HN won't let me respond, probably due to the automatic moderation controls kicking in on this article, so here's an example of the forced sterilization policy indiscriminately targeting all Uighur women: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/04/muslim-minority-teacher-50-tells-of-forced-sterilisation-in-xinjiang-china https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/04/muslim-minorit...
  - beaunative 6y ago
    Where did you read that? If I read it correctly, they used sterilization on couples who already have children at the limit allowed. I won't call it can't
  - scilro 6y ago
    But the question is, _why?_ What's their incentive to apply more cruel population control on one ethnic group over others? We're talking about a repressive government, but not a race-based regime like Nazi Germany was. Indeed from their own propaganda they seem like they bend over backward to trumpet the well-being of their ethnic minorities, and you'll hear of cases of the Great Firewall censoring outpourings of nationalist/racist sentiment. The more boring explanation is the simpler one I think; that they're bringing policies toward minorities in line with policies toward the majority -- i.e. ending a form of "affirmative action" they used to have. You can argue that population control of _any_ kind is wrong and cruel, and I think that's a totally defensible argument, but there's a rhetorical sleight of hand going on here where people equate China's controversial population control measures (that have been ongoing for decades) with the elimination of a particular ethnic minority, Nazi-style.
    - chongli 6y ago
      But the question is, _why?_ What's their incentive to apply more cruel population control on one ethnic group over others? It's a culture- and religion-based form of oppression. The ethnic Uighur people are Muslims, for the most part. They form a distinct subculture within China. The Communist Party sees their nonconformity as a threat to social harmony. That's why, in addition to forced sterilization and forced birth control, the government has imposed forced re-education in concentration camps. Their goal is to destroy the Uighur population's distinctiveness as a subculture in China. It is deliberate ethnocide (by forced internment) and genocide (by reproductive suppression).
      - scilro 6y ago
        I understand that's the claim, but on the other hand, the biggest Muslim ethnic group (Hui) aren't repressed. Which makes you ask, what's the difference between Uyghurs and other Muslim minority groups like the Hui? Well, the biggest as far as I can tell is the influx of new, extremist ideologies like Wahhabism that are actually quite _incompatible_ with the indigenous culture. The reasons why that happened seem complex, but maybe you can say it's an unfortunate outcome of US and Russian meddling in the region over decades. It's absolutely true that there's increased security and surveillance targeted at Uyghurs in the region, I've seen a lot of videos taken by travelers from the area that confirm that. There's also a coordinated and systemic program of re-education, as admitted by Chinese authorities. I'm sure there is a non-zero amount of abuses as part of this whole program, but I don't think that's the same thing as genocide. & I think the stated reason in their propaganda for _why_ this is all happening passes the smell test... Otherwise, wouldn't they be repressing Hui Muslims as well? (Also see Tibet -- people said the same thing about Tibetan culture 20 years ago, but it's pretty well-understood now that there were foreign-funded separatist elements back then)
  - TheOperator 6y ago
    While sterilization has jumped up several times, one cannot actually effectively commit a genocide by performing sterilization operations on an entire population. Most of what's going on is coercion and soft power.

dgellow 6y ago

There is a quite strong correlation between level of education and number of birth per women. The best way to "control" population growth is to give easy access to a good education and birth control solutions (I mean condoms and the pill). No coercion required.

jbay808 6y ago
That's true, but this is also an attempt to a moral question with a pragmatic empirical answer. The problem with this is the data can always change. How would your opinion change if that correlation were found to disappear in the coming decades? Or if it actually began to reverse (for example as populations shift to being more urban where kids are expensive and access to assisted reproduction depends on wealth)?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dgellow 6y ago
  I don't know.
beerandt 6y ago
I'm opining/arguing that if you make this statement: >The best way to "control" population growth is... Then provide some level of govt incentive to reach that goal, it's still coercion (or if you prefer, manipulation), even if the incentive is 1st order positive effects, and the stated goal/result is a 2nd or 3rd order effect. Thinking about it, I keep coming back to preditory lending/selling tactics or dark-pattern manipulation (except the UI is your life choices) as comparisons, but I haven't worked out exactly why, yet, other than it bothers me in a similar way. Moreso, since it's government.
- endominus 6y ago
  That's a rather strange position to hold. It brings in issues related to both the Prisoner's Dilemma and the Tragedy of the Commons. To whit, each individual reproductive group may desire more offspring, but each successively larger generation consumes more resources. Given a (for the foreseeable future) finite amount of resources, unrestricted population expansion is net harmful to society as a whole, even as large families may be beneficial (i.e. result in greater happiness) for individual groups. It's a coordination problem. Everyone wants to act in the way that maximizes their happiness/success/utility, but in doing so acts in a net-negative way. One of the premier purposes of government is to solve coordination problems. Why is it unethical for the government to solve this coordination problem? Or, more concretely, why does my right to have a dozen children trump my children's right to have sufficient resources left to them to live a happy life?

godelski 6y ago

So I was going to reply to the parent but after thinking a little more I think I have a better good faith interpretation. I think they used "coercion" instead of "persuasion" because it is a stronger word (implying forcing or threatening). So if we read their comment that way I don't think they disagree with you or would be against even encouraging things like planed births and making birth control widely available.

beaunative 6y ago
You might not be wrong. Though after rereading it, I'm convinced that it was suggested in that comment popluation control is wrong regardless. Note the paragraph on education. So in that framework, providing education with the intention of reducing birth would be unethical. How moderate or non-coercive of a means are we talking about?
- godelski 6y ago
  That's true, but hard to tell when the person hasn't responded. I tend to try (key word) to use the strongest form of someone's argument (not that I think you're talking about their weakest form). But what I was originally going to say is that the language gets really fuzzy really fast. Like you could argue that sex education is a form of persuasion (though I wouldn't say coercion) and is easily argued as a form of population control. But I think many of us would call that beneficial. I'd say the same with free/cheap and easy access to forms of birth control. I'd say that enables more choice. But if we're talking about a counseling center that guilt trips someone into having the child or not having the child I'd call that coercion and I don't think that's right. But others would call that persuasion and education. So I think this gets messy really quick and a bit of expanding on the thought for clarification is needed.
beerandt 6y ago
I'm not ideologically opposed to contraception, for what it's worth. I used the word "coercion" intentionally, although it's not exactly right. Just as "coercion" implies "force or threatening," "persuasion" implies an "un-forced, freely-made choice." And that is a big part of what I'm questioning depending on particular circumstances. At what level of deception or trickery or lies-of-omission, does the free-choice become the illusion-of-choice? Hypothetically, in Xinjiang, if (and I get that this is an extremely unlikely "if" for obvious reasons) if we presume the actions are exactly the same (provide/offer/compel education), and the end results are exactly the same (results in suppressed Uighur birthrate, but educated), Then does the government's good or bad intent matter? What's the difference between these scenarios, if 1) China govt being honest and trying raise the QoL in Xinjiang to be equal with the rest of China, or 2) China govt lying, and using education as a pretense because of the low birthrate result that they desire?

Alkhwarizmi 6y ago

Who are you to decide who gets to live or not!? Population control of any kind must be made illegal.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

friendlybus 6y ago

It's wrong because we own our own bodies. The confict of expanding humanity does not go away when you manage the population, people will want to expand. Giving the state arbitrary powers to limit population growth is a form of violence. Having a state sactioned sterilization on excess children is just as horrific as a war, without any of the spoils of war. The problem lies in the fact that the gov is the last body left to resolve our deepest conflicts as we are no longer free to commit acts of violence on our own behalf. Making it through life used to be materially difficult and death was far more common. Living in our current heaven-like atmosphere has far darker implications for the age-old conflicts.

exabrial 6y ago

Historically when governments have executed it the concept has ended in genocide? I'm not trying to accuse you of ill intent or supporting such a position, but once a government is given these tools the inevitable outcome has been such once the willing political party takes power.