We have established, by what I consider to be a rational argument, that the best strategy for humankind, in the short, medium and long term, is to fly in the face of amoral nature and instead to encourage the survival of all persons. Natural selection produces only the survival of the survivors. It gives no worth nor value to any person as an individual. If people do not reproduce, however, the human race would soon be extinct. Our infinitesimal impact on the Universe would vanish. If we believe our continuing existence is worthwhile, then procreation becomes essential to our goal of mutual survival.

On the other hand, history demonstrates that uncontrolled procreation, or over-population, leads to disaster in all species. Before this eventually happens, some progress may have occurred. Consider the Dinosaurs. Over-population was probably not their problem, but evolutionary pressures were ever with them, as they are with us. It can be argued that without at least some evolutionary population pressures civilisation as we know it today would not have developed, or at least not so rapidly. A Garden of Eden is no place for technocrats.

Nevertheless, projection of past and present trends shows that, if there are not already, there will soon be too many people on earth for the energy we have readily available to support them indefinitely in "a manner to which we have become accustomed". We are threatened by competition from our fellow creatures for available energy resources. Even if technology comes our rescue and a source of permanently renewable energy emerges, there is the question of land space. Where are we to put all the billions of new people predicted for the next millennium and beyond? Into outer space?

On our earthly time scales a virtually infinite time stretches before us. In our aptious society, where there is mutual respect for all, it would seem paradoxical if population control had to be enforced. Who would be allowed to have children? Who would decide whom? If we continue at our present rate of population explosion, I can foresee some coercion will have to be adopted, unless war, pestilence, or plague solves the problem temporarily. It has been claimed that the great plagues of Europe earlier this past millennium actually led to better lives for all those surviving. In the Republic of China today, drastic steps are being taken to control its population. We may not approve of the methods used but we must all be thankful it is happening.

I would prefer a more individualistic scheme which recognised both sides of the human problem:
a. the need to procreate prudently; and
b. the freedom of people to bear responsibility.

Consider a modern parable. In the oil crisis of the 1970s the UK and the USA adopted different means of cutting petroleum consumption. In the UK, people could not buy more than a certain small amount of petrol at any one visit to a petrol station. In the USA, people were not allowed to buy less than a certain large amount. Which was the more effective method?

In the UK drivers were filling up at every available opportunity. They were driving from station to station keeping their tanks as full as possible. Queues were everywhere. In the USA, most drivers were perforce driving around with their tanks half empty, as in fact most people normally do. In the UK we had a sudden extra self-imposed shortage of petrol as we all carried unused petrol in our tanks. In the USA, most people hardly noticed the effect. They did other things too, like restrict the days on which petrol could be purchased, depending on the digits on your number plate, and they lowered the national maximum speed limit to 55 mph. The point I wish to make, however, is that in a shortage of resources, if you encourage people to collect or hoard, you will exacerbate the situation.

Returning to my procreation theme, with this parable in mind, I suggest that we revise the usual family allowance criteria. We could pay an allowance, a substantial allowance, for the first child, up to a certain age, or even for the first two, if the government of the day thought it appropriate, but not for any subsequent children. The money would be paid to the person responsible for the child’s day-to-day welfare, usually the mother, foster-mother, or guardian. It would, as a monetary transaction, be taxed by giving tax credit. Thus parents, while they choose to stay at home to bring up a family, would be explicitly valued by the tax system. They would earn benefits proportionately, such as extra voting power, and pensions.

Such a scheme would work well for all, rich or poor. Having children is a valid long-term service to society, yet it is a personal decision within the control and responsibility of each person, (or relevant pair). There should be no stigma attached to not having children. Society should be prepared to fund the next generation, within prudent limits, but "collecting" children should not be cost-effective. Procreation would be constrained but not unduly inhibited. This would lead generally to every child being a wanted child, an important characteristic of any society where each person born is deemed to have equal worth, whatever their subsequent value.

While we are discussing procreation, we should perhaps touch on the thorny question of abortion. It has always been a difficult subject, full of both special cases and generalisations. What should be clear by now, I hope, that certain fundamental misconceptions(sic) have clouded judgements. Whichever side of the abortion argument you stand, man cannot be accused of "playing God" if the God people are accused of playing does not exist. No soul can be consigned to purgatory, if it is not baptised, if there is no soul. Life, as life, is not sacred. Nothing in nature is sacred. Nature does not care. There are many-many-more natural abortions, or miscarriages, than any performed by mankind.

The "abortion is unnatural" argument, was recently exposed for what it is, when there was a lady expecting octuplets. She was in the difficult position of wondering whether to let nature take its course (having conceived all eight unnaturally in the first place), or to try to save a specific number, say one or two, and abort the rest. She made her own decision, which I respect, but some commentators advised that she must let nature decide. If none survived that would be an "Act of God". If the doctors saved one, that would be the murder of seven!

We cannot rely on nature. Abortion must be a human decision, based on practical logic. Our moral stance is to try to ensure the survival of each individual person. So, when does a foetus become an individual person?

It is not made any easier to answer this question by the notion that an individual becomes individual at conception, but a person becomes a person only at birth. The pragmatic debate has revolved around trying to legislate when a foetus becomes viable; that is, when individuals can be regarded as persons even when born prematurely. A difficulty with this middle way is that so much depends upon particular cases, accurate knowledge of dates of conception, and on medical technology. No doubt the debate will continue indefinitely, each national legislature providing its own solution, varying from time to time. I see no universal alternative solution. Providing the debate is conducted rationally, aptiously, with mutual respect, this is probably the best we can do. Irrational dogma is no way to approach such a personally sensitive subject.

The underlying principles of no fault National Insurance should still apply. For example, if a woman became pregnant through no fault of her own, by rape, or incest perhaps, then society would fund the pregnancy, or the abortion, whichever the woman decided within whatever options the law allowed. Later, if such a mother rejects her born child, this can not be regarded as the fault of the child. There can be no shame attached to being a bastard. Society must take its responsibility, in its insurance company rôle, for the abandoned child’s welfare. The proper care of children is essential for the welfare of society as a whole.

On the other side of the abortion coin are those men and women who are unable to have children. Society will also have to decide whether this is an unforeseeable catastrophe for which taxpayer funds will be made available. It will usually be unforeseeable, but whether it should be regarded as a catastrophe would be debatable. Fertility treatment would be another of those categories for which respective governments would have to determine who pays. We wish to maintain bio-diversity, but that is a strategy not a right. I can not see it as an inalienable right for all people to pass on their genes directly. You may think differently.

At the other end of life’s span there is euthanasia and suicide. Here a person definitely is a person, and should be allowed some choice. Rational wishes should be respected. As long as it is made clear that death is not taking a person to anywhere but oblivion, it should be left to individual persons to decide. Impersonally the law should therefore provide a suitable framework for self-determined or self-inflicted death. Personally, although I can see a case for voluntary euthanasia of the terminally ill in special cases, I have no sympathy for suicide by those in corpore sano. People should be aware that suicide is not just an option, it is the end of all options. If self-esteem were aptiously engendered in all people, suicide would disappear.

"There are few causes worth dying for that are not better served by living." {Louis L’Amour}

The cause of one’s self worth is as worthwhile a motive to live for as I can envision.

return to Contents

go to Homosexuality

View my guestbook