Advocating that population control as the most important priority that there is damages efforts at vaccination.
If it’s plausible that your morals are okay with giving vaccinations in a way to damage human reproductive capacity your effort of vaccination people against important diseases runs into trouble.
There are enough conspiracy theorists out there that claim that the UN cares about population control enough to vaccinate in a way reduces reproduction capacity that’s an issue. It’s valuable to signal that you care more about saving lives than you can about population control when you want that a African nation welcomes your help at vaccinating it’s population to get rid of nasty diseases.
The politics of going to an African nation and saying:
“We come with an engineering solution to reduce your population growth are just terrible.”
An African community is less likely to take your condoms when they think that you want to reduce their population growth than when they think you care about protecting them from AIDS.
Politics matter. Trying to tackle the issue of population growth by ignoring politics has the danger that you make a lot of political mistakes that hurt your course.
Yes, it’s a socially tough question. It might be so tough that the bulk of mitigation efforts might have to be put into the technological advancement side of the equation, and that seems to be what’s happening, though it’s unclear how deliberate this is.
But just because publicly acknowledging the nature of a problem will make one unpopular doesn’t mean that one should privately start to deny it. On the contrary, one should correct for the Koolaid by privately reminding one’s self what the real problem is, and that a socially acceptable framing of the problem has to be part of any solution that one expects to work.
Advocating that population control as the most important priority that there is damages efforts at vaccination.
If it’s plausible that your morals are okay with giving vaccinations in a way to damage human reproductive capacity your effort of vaccination people against important diseases runs into trouble.
There are enough conspiracy theorists out there that claim that the UN cares about population control enough to vaccinate in a way reduces reproduction capacity that’s an issue. It’s valuable to signal that you care more about saving lives than you can about population control when you want that a African nation welcomes your help at vaccinating it’s population to get rid of nasty diseases.
The politics of going to an African nation and saying: “We come with an engineering solution to reduce your population growth are just terrible.”
An African community is less likely to take your condoms when they think that you want to reduce their population growth than when they think you care about protecting them from AIDS.
Politics matter. Trying to tackle the issue of population growth by ignoring politics has the danger that you make a lot of political mistakes that hurt your course.
Yes, it’s a socially tough question. It might be so tough that the bulk of mitigation efforts might have to be put into the technological advancement side of the equation, and that seems to be what’s happening, though it’s unclear how deliberate this is.
But just because publicly acknowledging the nature of a problem will make one unpopular doesn’t mean that one should privately start to deny it. On the contrary, one should correct for the Koolaid by privately reminding one’s self what the real problem is, and that a socially acceptable framing of the problem has to be part of any solution that one expects to work.