Population Control

[goldenchild17]

You can move this to Debate Table if you like for a discussion. But I just put it here for quick exposure. I have to answer this as part of my take home final for an environmental science class. I can do number 5 no problem, but I could REALLY use some help with the other four. Some advantages and disadvantages of this approach for each perspective. And it doesn't really matter if you don't think there are any advantages to population control. It's a liberal class and I have to come up with whatever a liberal answer would be. But I can't think of what it would be...


________________________________________________________________


In Part 3 of the course we discussed the impact of resource use on the environment. Specifically, we looked at how an unsustainable demand for resources due to increasing population can lead to conflict among people and with the environment. The most common means of addressing this issue is to determine ways to make resource use more efficient (eg, use vehicles with higher gas mileage). A less common but obvious alternative is to see how people can reverse the rate of population increase.

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach (population control) using each of the following perspectives:

1) A democratically-elected Politician
2) A mother with a newborn child
3) A villager in sub-Saharan Africa
4) A U of A (or any university) student in the year 2050 AD
5) Your own perspective


(No repeating advantages and disadvantages among perspectives.)

Edited December 13, 2006 by goldenchild17

[MissScripture]

You probably wouldn't be able to use this and get a good grade, but here's my thought on an advantage: Those of us who don't believe in "population control" will soon rule the world, because the other people will control their population out of existence.

I know, I'm not of much help, but good luck with that.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Is it moral to help you with a final exam, take-home or otherwise?

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1141269' date='Dec 13 2006, 12:01 PM']
1) A democratically-elected Politician
2) A mother with a newborn child
3) A villager in sub-Saharan Africa
4) A U of A (or any university) student in the year 2050 AD
5) Your own perspective
[/quote]

1. shoot all the politicians
2. have the child raised Catholic
3. have her abstain until she is married
4. phaser death the liberal profs (method not the same as #1)
5. I do not believe in poulation control

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1141275' date='Dec 13 2006, 01:19 PM']
Is it moral to help you with a final exam, take-home or otherwise?
[/quote]

Sure I don't see why not. We have to look up all our answers on the internet. He said however we get the information is fine.

[goldenchild17]

I mean I understand the concept of how population control purportedly can be good to help conserve our resources. But I can't think of specific advantages and disadvantages in each of these situations (except the last one. I can do it from my perspective just fine.)

[beatty07]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1141269' date='Dec 13 2006, 12:01 PM']
1) A democratically-elected Politician
2) A mother with a newborn child
3) A villager in sub-Saharan Africa
4) A U of A (or any university) student in the year 2050 AD
5) Your own perspective
(No repeating advantages and disadvantages among perspectives.)
[/quote]

1) Depends on his voting base. If they are rich and powerful, then population control will help him maintain his office. Why? Because population control, wherever it has existed, has [i]always[/i] been the control of the poor population by the rich. Fewer poor people, proportionally, means better election results. On the other hand, if the poor tend to be the ones who elect him, then he will have a selfish interest in not limiting their numbers.

2) Disadvantage: As someone whose whole heart is wrapped up in completely defenseless person, she should be concerned to make the world a place where such persons are cherished and welcomed. A world where babies are seen as "little threats to the environment" (Janet Smith's phrase) is not a good world for her child. In addition, more people will usually mean a stronger economy, and that means more comfort, more security, and better medicine for her child in the future. Advantage: in the case of economic depression, more people would probably make it more difficult for her child to find work, and would worsen the inflation of food prices.

3) Disadvantage: These communities tend to survive by subsistence farming. That means more people, more labor, more specialization, more efficiency, more food for everyone. In other words, three people can grow more than three times as much food as one person. Furthermore, the constant threat of epidemic, war, and famine means that population decimation could happen anytime. Survival will be difficult if the population is barely at sustenance level already. Advantage: In the case of such a famine, food stores will be depleted more slowly. (this is really BS, since more people could generate larger food stores to begin with).

4) Hard to make a helpful generalization about this group...speculative to the point of uselessness in my opinion. In other words, I can't think of anything!

5) I like people. I believe that human labor is creative; that we actually generate wealth by our work. This is obvious. However, population control people (and democratic financial policy) seem to assume that wealth is a zero-sum game. If somebody gets wealthier, than somebody else must have gotten poorer. That translates to other people being threats, rather than partners. An example of why this is foolish: Bill Gates has made all of our lives better. His vast wealth was not taken from other people who are now poor; rather, he found a way to make the world a much wealthier and more productive place in general.

There may come a time when our ability to generate food is outstripped by the Earth's population. At that time, it will be our responsibility to use moral means of limiting our families. JPII himself said in Crossing the Threshold of Hope that prudence in family size is a moral responsibility! But we're nowhere NEAR that point yet, in my opinion. People starve because of selfishness and corruption, not because we can't grow enough food. There are mountains of wheat left to rot every year in the Heartland. We still pay farmers NOT to grow crops.

Meanwhile, there are more AIDS orphans in Uganda every minute, and our ridiculous litigation-driven overuse of antibiotics makes it a real possibility that we'll all start dying of TB again soon. And yet, here we have these filthy rich white guys (Ted Turner, Bill Gates) who are donating TEN-FIGURE sums to stop poor brown and black people from reproducing. I believe their intentions are good...but isn't there something awful sinister about this?

wow, sorry...end of rant. I need to cut down on the coffee.

[goldenchild17]

No, ranting is fine . That helped a lot. Thanks. I can work with that quite a bit. I don't necessarily think that the earth will ever be completely stripped of it's resources, but that's not really the point . THanks.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]"Save the trees, get an abortion"
[/size]

[goldenchild17]

That's basically what they're getting at I know .

[Red Knight]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1141397' date='Dec 13 2006, 02:50 PM']
[size=1]"Save the trees, get an abortion"
[/size]
[/quote]


But, there are more trees in North America now then there was when Europeans landed. I just don't get it!

[morostheos]

oooh, if I had this as an assignment I sure would give that professor a mouthful!

although I think it's really dumb that you can't repeat advantages or disadvantages for any of the people. the thing about it is, population control doesn't have a different effect on each person, it affects the entire human community. I really don't quite feel right giving you specific suggestions for a take home exam though...

You could always look up what others have said about advantages and disadvantages for particular groups of people though - I'm sure there's a lot of that out there for the advantages. The disadvantages - for each you could focus on a different aspect of how killing people/artificially limiting births is dehumanizing. Also, don't forget to mention how of course it is important for a family to be responsible and not simply make babies regardless of material support for these children, but conventional "population control" methods are not needed for this to occur.

Just a few ideas....

[desertwoman]

I always thought that homosexuality was a way of population control, for they can not produce kids.

Edited December 14, 2006 by desertwoman

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='morostheos' post='1141671' date='Dec 13 2006, 08:09 PM']
oooh, if I had this as an assignment I sure would give that professor a mouthful!

although I think it's really dumb that you can't repeat advantages or disadvantages for any of the people. the thing about it is, population control doesn't have a different effect on each person, it affects the entire human community. I really don't quite feel right giving you specific suggestions for a take home exam though...

You could always look up what others have said about advantages and disadvantages for particular groups of people though - I'm sure there's a lot of that out there for the advantages. The disadvantages - for each you could focus on a different aspect of how killing people/artificially limiting births is dehumanizing. Also, don't forget to mention how of course it is important for a family to be responsible and not simply make babies regardless of material support for these children, but conventional "population control" methods are not needed for this to occur.

Just a few ideas....
[/quote]

Hey don't worry about it. This is only one question among many on my final and we were supposed to go out and find the answer however we could. I have a few leads though so I'm good. And honestly I don't think I will go into the whole idea of natural "moral" family control. I can't support NFP or Rythm or anything like that so that wouldn't really work for me.

But thanks for the ideas guys, you did good .

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1141688' date='Dec 13 2006, 08:29 PM']
I always thought that homosexuality was a way of population control, for they can not produce kids.
[/quote]

Yeah, quite effective it is.

[desertwoman]

lol. that and greed, selfishness, and pride... oh yeah, lack of patience.