I've been arguing today with the good people (some more than others) at the Reason.com blog about the merits and demerits of the Chinese population control policies. This time, I'm on the side of the commies - by agreeing to the principle that there is a need for population control, more so than supporting their totalitarian tactics. I am perplexed by the futility and uselessness of commonly stated opinions such as Rhywun's, who says:
Regardless of whatever resource limitations may or may not present themselves in the future, it is the height of fascist arrogance to tell a couple they may not have a child. Shame on you.
Well, here's what I think.

I'm not worried that the human population cannot sustain itself at the current level, or even with many more people. What I am worried about is that doing so will require an utter transformation of this planet to a form devoted exclusively to sustaining humans; there will not be a place for any species less well organized than us.

I am quite confident that the human population can grow to enormous numbers and yet survive. I have no doubt that, when faced with either death or technological progress, that progress will prevail.

What I very much doubt is that anything of value, other than humans, will survive in the process. Monkeys can't vote. Tigers can't vote. Whales can't vote. Lobster can't vote. Dolphins can't vote. Cod can't vote. The grasses can't vote, and the forrests can't vote either.

All of these entities have no say in our expansion process, and they are going to be trampled.

Earth as it is right now is luxurious. We've trampled lots of it already, but luxurious it still is. The world of 9 billion people either cannot be prosperous in the sense that you or I are prosperous today, or it won't be very luxurious.

Now, if anyone wants to live in a completely artificial world, I have no problem with anyone going off into space and forming off-world colonies and multiplying as much as they want up there. But for the world down here, I really don't see why we need to create yet more human beings that will convert this planet into an ever more artificial concoction, as if there aren't already enough of us as it is.

There is no harm done in restraining our reproduction. Creatures who aren't conceived do not suffer for it. With a global cap and trade system, anyone could have as many children as they want, as long as they pay the market price for the privilege.

If someone wants unchecked population growth for themselves, let them go launch a colony in space. Find a technological way to do that. There's nothing to trample on there. And unlike here, there's nothing valuable that they will be irreversibly destroying.

I have no problem with technological solutions that would lead to the creation of amazingly populated and rich artificial worlds in space. There's few things I'd love to see more than that.

But it will be tragic if the Earth will first need to be trampled to get there.

There's a reason why some sensitive tourist sites restrict the number of tourists despite the light impact of each individual visitor. Large numbers of people coming through and just looking, not touching anything - even if they're just breathing, that has an effect.

The Earth is one such sensitive tourist site.

That said, I do agree that China's ways of exercising their policies are fascist. But it doesn't necessarily need to be run that way.

To limit global population growth, I would propose a global system of cap-and-trade. Under such a system, every person would initially receive the right to have 1.5 or so children. However, the rights of two persons in a couple wouldn't add. A formerly childless couple together could immediately have one child, but if they wanted another one, they would each need to buy the right for 0.5 each from two other people willing to forfeit 0.5 of their right to have a child (or one person willing to forfeit 1.0, or 4 people willing to forfeit 0.25 - you get the drift). The rate for these rights would be set by the market. The higher the demand relative to supply, the higher the price; and the higher the supply relative to demand, the lower the price. These rights would need to be tradeable globally and without tax repercussions for sellers. The net effect would be that people in developed countries would continue to have about as many children as they do now, and people in less developed countries may have less as they would sell some of their rights to have children to people in developed countries. The result would be a net flow of capital towards less developed countries as compensation for them to restrain their population growth, while the levels of population in developed countries would be maintained. Benefits all around.

Of course, try selling that to people who believe that everyone should have a recognized fundamental right to make as many copies of their DNA as they wish, and have each of those copies automatically receive education, support and voting rights. A cap-and-trade system seems optimal as a way to restrict population growth, but it can be put into practice only if the majority of people put a greater value on not irreversibly destroying the planet's ecosystems, rather than on vain reproduction.