I agree with Eric Neyman and ColdButtonIssues here: EA likes finding levers to pull, and it doesn’t seem plausible that it could find some pretty large ones around demographics (e.g., increased immigration, policies to accelerate or decelerate the demographic transition in countries which may undergo it, etc.)
Yes, but I don’t see why we have to evaluate any of those things on the basis of arguments or thinking like the population ethics thought experiments.
Increased immigration is good because it gives people freedom to improve their lives, increasing their agency.
The demographic transition (including falling fertility rates) is good because it results from increased wealth and education, which indicates that it is about women becoming better-informed and better able to control their own reproduction. If in the future fertility rates rise because people become wealthy enough to make child-rearing less of a burden, that would also be good. In each case people have more information and ability to make choices for themselves and create the life they want. That is what is good, not the number of people or whether the world is better in some impersonal sense with or without them.
Policies to accelerate or decelerate the demographic transition could be good or bad depending on how they operate. If they increase agency, they could be good; if they decrease it, they are bad (e.g., China’s “one child” policy; or bans on abortion or contraception).
We don’t need the premises or the framework of population ethics to address these questions.
FWIW, to me it does seem that you are using some notion of aggregate welfare across a population when considering these cases, rather than purely deontological reasoning
Policies to accelerate or decelerate the demographic transition could be good or bad depending on how they operate. If they increase agency, they could be good; if they decrease it, they are bad (e.g., China’s “one child” policy; or bans on abortion or contraception).
The demographic transition (including falling fertility rates) is good because it results from increased wealth and education, which indicates that it is about women becoming better-informed and better able to control their own reproduction.
I’ve also seen the explanation that as child mortality dwindles, people choose to invest more of their resources into fewer children.
I agree with Eric Neyman and ColdButtonIssues here: EA likes finding levers to pull, and it doesn’t seem plausible that it could find some pretty large ones around demographics (e.g., increased immigration, policies to accelerate or decelerate the demographic transition in countries which may undergo it, etc.)
Yes, but I don’t see why we have to evaluate any of those things on the basis of arguments or thinking like the population ethics thought experiments.
Increased immigration is good because it gives people freedom to improve their lives, increasing their agency.
The demographic transition (including falling fertility rates) is good because it results from increased wealth and education, which indicates that it is about women becoming better-informed and better able to control their own reproduction. If in the future fertility rates rise because people become wealthy enough to make child-rearing less of a burden, that would also be good. In each case people have more information and ability to make choices for themselves and create the life they want. That is what is good, not the number of people or whether the world is better in some impersonal sense with or without them.
Policies to accelerate or decelerate the demographic transition could be good or bad depending on how they operate. If they increase agency, they could be good; if they decrease it, they are bad (e.g., China’s “one child” policy; or bans on abortion or contraception).
We don’t need the premises or the framework of population ethics to address these questions.
FWIW, to me it does seem that you are using some notion of aggregate welfare across a population when considering these cases, rather than purely deontological reasoning
I’m not using purely deontological reasoning, that is true. I have issues with deontological ethics as well.
Seems underspecified. E.g., not sure how you would judge a ban or nudge against cousin marriage.
I’ve also seen the explanation that as child mortality dwindles, people choose to invest more of their resources into fewer children.