Birth Control Part of the Solution? And Who Decides Whether it is or Not?

It’s a topic that, by its very nature, provokes a passionate response.

Should population growth be curbed?

Immediately, we are faced with important moral, ethical and religious quandaries.

I write this in the light of a piece that appeared in the UK’s Observer. In it, John Gray, a political philosopher, states:

The uncomfortable fact, which is ignored or denied by both ends of the environmental debate, is that an energy-intensive lifestyle of the kind enjoyed in the rich parts of the world cannot be extended to a human population of nine or 10 billion, the level forecast in UN studies for the middle of this century.

• » See also: #4 Copenhagen, Denmark: Great Bicycle City Photo Tour
• » Get EcoWorldly by RSS or sign up by email.

He makes this statement having already argued that it is naive to even imagine that a global addicition to fossil fuels can be tamed.

You may argue that it is possible to alter global behaviour with regards to energy consumption, yet the facts, as I see them, suggest that global political will seems at best cautious when it comes to the adoption of alternative energy sources. That is what makes being an environmental writer so heartbreaking at times.

So, again, a return to the original question: should population growth be stemmed?

The BBC has a page that calmly looks at the dilemmas inherent to such an approach. For example, and I think they’re bang on the money here, it can be argued that:

the real cause of poverty and [environmental] damage is over consumption by a few, and that if rich nations stopped consuming far more than their fair share of resources there would be no need for population control to be applied unfairly to poor nations.

They cite the ethical arguments as:

• Imperialism: Both the following can be regarded as forms of imperialism:
  • rich countries funding contraceptive programmes in the third world
  • rich countries demanding the implementation of birth control programmes in exchange for financial or other aid
• Cultural imperialism: Bringing birth control to a community that has previously avoided it inevitably changes the relationships and power dynamics within that community. It’s important to take appropriate precautions to minimise the impact of contraception on cultures to which it is introduced.
• Human rights: Mass birth control interferes with a person’s right to have as many children as they wish
• Eugenics: Mass birth control programmes may be used to reduce the birth rate of certain classes, castes or ethnic groups
• Gender bias: The majority of mass birth-control programmes operate by controlling only female fertility. This is because there are long-term female contraceptives such as the pill, hormone implants, and IUDs, but no male equivalents. As a result:
  • women unfairly bear the burden of population control
  • female fertility is treated as something dangerous that needs to be controlled
  • this gender bias operates regardless of the good intentions behind programmes of mass contraception

The BBC page I have linked to is well worth a visit. It contains three pages devoted to the subject.

On a personal level, there’s something of a paradox arising here. Becoming a father 18 months ago garnered more passion in me to fight to leave the planet clean for my daughter than ever before. It’s only by becoming a father that I have (hopefully) increased my green credentials with regards to my carbon footprint et al.

I will say, though, that my daughter is my only child. I feel blessed and have no desire for more children.

John Gray:

Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now.

What are your thoughts? Can population control ever be seen as a green option? And should it even be debated?

Source:

Photo courtesy of Flickr

Further Reading:

Families should have no more than two children - thinktank - The Evening Standard

Having large families ‘is an eco-crime’ - The Times

Tweet This Post