Comments on: Inconsistent Paternalism

By: Quixote

Quixote — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:11:43 +0000

Yeah, the exchange of fractional children would be complicated, maybe 2/3 is a better allowance. I imagine if I wanted to be a single parent I would just get a 1/4 from a friend, but then if children are rationed I imagine that would be a rather large favor to ask.

By: Matt Zeitlin

Matt Zeitlin — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:57:40 +0000

One immediate problem with that solution is single mothers. If you’re a 35 year old woman who wants a child but the entire finding a husband thing is working out, how do you have one child? Where can you buy another 1/4 of a child? Would you buy 3/4, then sell 1/2 to a couple who wanted number two? If there was a consensus that some sort of radical population control was necessary and popular, something along those lines would clearly be the way to go.

By: Quixote

Quixote — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:13:49 +0000

My favorite population control solution come from a science fiction book — Green Mars.

In it, a CEO-type suggest that every person be given the right to 3/4 of a child, and so be allowed to have 1.5 children as a couple. Then their would be a sort of commodity market where you could sell your extra half-share (and attain more resources to support your one child) or buy a half share, and so be able to have another baby.

It’s creepy and in the category of “inappropriate market solutions to human problems,” but I kind of…like it.

By: Mike Meginnis

Mike Meginnis — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:37:37 +0000

Having stumbled in by shamefully obvious means…

…I would add my own feeling that doctors ought to be taking the first excuse they can to sterilize everybody in sight. Our planet has a serious problem with over-population looming on the horizon. I’d be pretty comfortable with using taxes or some other incentive structure to severely discourage anybody from having more than two children (thus maintaining zero population growth, more or less). Of course, the US isn’t really behind population explosions anymore anyhow.

By: Quixote

Quixote — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:09:26 +0000

Fair enough, clearly certain opinions are my own. But if the good of having your own children is based only on its popularity with a super-majority of people, it’s problematic to restrict the minority, no matter how small, from pursuing another, conflicting good. Control of ones body/life shouldn’t be impacted by what other people really like.

By: Matt Zeitlin

Matt Zeitlin — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:03:12 +0000

I think a lot of what you say is correct, but there might be a slight misunderstanding. My point wasn’t that there’s some intrinsic good in people having their own children. One could make the argument that from a Peter Singer style ethical system, you’d have to adopt children from third world countries, that having your own children is senseless prioritizing of your own genes with an oppurtunity cost of greatly improving the situations of living children.

The central tenent of my post is that having children makes people happy. It’s something people want to do. It improves their emotional and mental well being. And in so much as medical care should be about that, it makes sense for doctors to permanently disable individuals from achieving what so many want. My concern is with the people getting the surgery and their happiness, not any specific good that comes from bearing one’s own children.

And while you may think that wanting to have children for the sake of genetic continuity is ridiculous, the people having those children sure don’t think so.