Mr Craig Stanbury1
1Monash University
Reducing the world’s population is a significant variable that can be altered to help decrease global emissions. Most of the discussion surrounding this variable has concentrated on the moral issues involved: to what extent is a state justified in reducing its population? Are individual procreators morally obligated to have fewer children? However, while these moral concerns are important, little attention has been given to the feasibility of a proposed solution to overpopulation. This paper aims to rectify that. By understanding whether (and how) feasibility impacts the truth-value of an ought claim, important progress can be made on deliberating what to do about overpopulation. In Section One, I outline the public health crisis that overpopulation causes, and present Sarah Conly’s argument as the most well-thought-out account of how to ethically and rapidly reduce the population. In Section Two, I borrow from Nicholas Southwood to explore when infeasibility makes an ought claim false. In Section Three, I show that rapidly reducing the population is infeasible. Therefore, regardless of any ethical merits, it should be eliminated as an option when deliberating what to do. Instead, we must put our time and resources into finding a feasible solution to overpopulation.
Biography:
I am a current PhD Candidate at the Monash Bioethics Centre working under the supervision of Catherine Mills (main) and Justin Oakley (associate). My research is concerned with understanding to what extent procreation is justified in light of the public health concerns of overpopulation and climate change.