According to philosopher Martya Sen, there exists an implicit balance between the availability of resources, level of economic and social development, birth and death rates, etc. that generate a somewhat predictable outcome matrix for environmental degradation amongst different nations around the world—a framework for apocalyptic disaster (Sen, Population: Delusion and Reality: 1994). While it is necessary to give merit and allocate appropriate amounts of research towards defining said balance, it is clear that it is nearly impossible to do just that with any degree of certainty. This aforementioned uncertainty still though does not warrant coercive limitations of procreative liberty. It is difficult to accurately interpret such a question for the realities of such a situation are so abstract and seemingly impractical; humans will acknowledge the importance of altering lifestyles in accordance with what best suits the planet if and when our species reaches such a point. If for whatever reason humans are incapable of coming to such a consensus and thus modifying familial dynamics for the sake of others and the sustainability of our planet, then stringent enforcement that favors limiting procreative liberties may be permissible.
Philosopher Sarah Conly hypothesizes that generally, society encourages and allocates more value to those that procreate than to those that cannot or choose not to (Conly, The Right to Procreation: Rights and Limits. 2005: 106-107). Conly argues that limiting the number of children an individual is allowed to have interferes with our basic right to procreate, yet acknowledges that said right conflicts with the rights of existing and future individuals and their basic needs: “absolute liberty is incompatible with others having the same liberty” (Conly 107). This statement accurately summarizes this fact. It is not possible for all people to share universal liberties at any one particular shared point in time. So while it is our fundamental right to have more than one child, it does not mean that it is morally permissible to exercise this right if it comes at the expense of other living beings; this assumption is difficult however because one could find information that could support the possibility that the majority of births in the Global North negatively influence the development and allocation of basic needs to the majority of births in the Global South—at what point does the gravity of this fact encourage change?
Condorcet believes that the population issue can be ameliorated through a collaborative approach “that relies not on legal or economic restrictions but on rational decisions of women and men, based on expanded choices and enhanced security, and encouraged by open dialogue and extensive public discussions” (Sen, 1994). The collaborative approach has proven to be successful in a multitude of cases and I am inclined to agree that education is the key to solving most issues on our planet. If we give the people the tools to make their own decisions that better them and the larger planet, the masses will not disappoint—and when a handful of them do, we may have to turn to Malthus.
