In the example you give, uncontrolled population is not the problem. Social policies and cultural values are the problems. And I don't think limiting the number of children people can have is the right solution, not morally, ethically, or practically.
Now, who are you (not literally you) to say how many children I'm allowed to have? Who are you to control the size of my family? What business is it--or should it be--of yours? (Maybe we just have very different ideas about the proper roles of government.)
Anyway, if the problem is too many undeserving people on welfare, change the eligibility requirements for receiving welfare.
> So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
You haven't? I think that, say, the Soviet Union would be an example of that, and communism in general. Although one could argue that that wasn't a case of self-determinism. It depends on the scale you're talking about. I think there are many examples of mobs of one scale or another being convinced to follow a certain path which had negative consequences. If the mob agrees with its leader, are its actions "self-determined"? Or if they think they're headed for success, are they "impairing" themselves? What matters, intent or results?
Now, who are you (not literally you) to say how many children I'm allowed to have? Who are you to control the size of my family? What business is it--or should it be--of yours? (Maybe we just have very different ideas about the proper roles of government.)
Anyway, if the problem is too many undeserving people on welfare, change the eligibility requirements for receiving welfare.
> So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
You haven't? I think that, say, the Soviet Union would be an example of that, and communism in general. Although one could argue that that wasn't a case of self-determinism. It depends on the scale you're talking about. I think there are many examples of mobs of one scale or another being convinced to follow a certain path which had negative consequences. If the mob agrees with its leader, are its actions "self-determined"? Or if they think they're headed for success, are they "impairing" themselves? What matters, intent or results?