Before discussing possible policies, I would like to have some more information about the territory.
Specifically: Do most poor people actively want a lot of children, or is it rather something that happens to them while having sex? Either because they don’t have money to use contraceptives, or are too stupid to use them properly, or simply at the moment of passion they forget to think about any related things… In other words, what exactly is the causal chain which creates most poor children? The answer could be different for different groups of people.
Now the solution should reflect that. If money is problem, then free contraceptives will solve it. If the culture or the religion is the problem, the only solution would be to somehow undermine given culture or religion at least in this aspect.
But the worst option is many poor people having the “meh, the tomorrow does not really exist” attitude. In which case, even if the contraceptives are freely distributed on every corner, and everyone is legally required to have thousands of them in home… these people would not use them anyway.
On the other hand, if infertility could somehow be made a default option, with just a trivial inconvenience to remove it (such as distributing contraception through air and providing a free pill to reverse the effect), these people would probably never reproduce. I just can’t imagine a real implementation of that.
Some poor people are simply people with very low intelligence. Not low enough to be in some institution, but low enough to do stupid things that a) make them poor, and b) make them unlikely to use contraceptives however free and accessible, even in the case they don’t really want to have children.
Possible solution: Provide free food to people. With contraceptives. Make this fact known. Expect outrage (not from the people who will eat the food, but from people who will use this opportunity to signal their moral superiority over you).
Some people have inherited a culture that does not value education and long-term planning. Historically, this culture came to my country centuries ago from a different place (where perhaps, in given time, it was not as disastrous as it is here and now). But looking at individuals, this culture comes from the previous generations.
Possible solution: If I had one, I would be going for my Nobel price now, instead of commenting on LessWrong. The solution would have to be not just realistic, but also politically acceptable, which is almost impossible given the connotations. (You know who else proposed solutions?Nazis did.)
If we remove the “politically acceptable” part, then a possible solution would be mandatory education for one generation. And by mandatory education I do not mean the usual mandatory school attendance, which we already have, and which is largely without an effect for given groups, because they easily undermine it. The pressure to learn from school would have to be greater than the pressure to not learn from home. Which would require some serious brainwashing and possibly isolation from home for longer periods of time. (Note: The “brainwashing” could be realized gently, e.g. through movies that depict smart and diligent heroes, and stupid contemptible villains.)
Do most poor people actively want a lot of children, or is it rather something that happens to them while having sex? Either because they don’t have money to use contraceptives, or are too stupid to use them properly, or simply at the moment of passion they forget to think about any related things… In other words, what exactly is the causal chain which creates most poor children? The answer could be different for different groups of people.
Or, perhaps, it’s an optimal choice given a bad situation.
If you are relatively uncertain that any one child will survive and prosper, and you want to maximize the chance of having grandchildren, you have many children — which means starting early, too. Likewise, if you have limited access to health care, and you want to bear children at the time that it’s medically safest for you to do so, late teenage years are preferable over early thirties.
Oh — and if it worked for your own parents (and those of others around you), it’s evidently an effective strategy.
(We tend to overestimate the degree to which people’s actions are due to the kind of person they are, and underestimate the degree to which they’re due to their situation. To correct for this, when we see people in a particular situation behaving in a particular way, we should try explaining the behavior with the situation before introducing third causes such as that they are unusually stupid or short-sighted people.)
Or, perhaps, it’s an optimal choice given a bad situation.
Optimal from evolutionary or psychological viewpoint? Because that’s not the same thing. What historically increased the frequency of genes of my ancestors is not always the same thing that makes me most happy now.
Even assuming that poor people having many children is best for their genes, it does not automatically mean that it makes them happy, and that they want it.
Nor does it mean that their genes are ‘best’ for the species to have in our environment, although of course that’s unpalatable to say on the whole about anyone.
Good point. But in any event, we shouldn’t infer that because someone makes a choice that we think we wouldn’t make, that this indicates that they are deficient (in intelligence, self-control, etc.)
Before discussing possible policies, I would like to have some more information about the territory.
Specifically: Do most poor people actively want a lot of children, or is it rather something that happens to them while having sex? Either because they don’t have money to use contraceptives, or are too stupid to use them properly, or simply at the moment of passion they forget to think about any related things… In other words, what exactly is the causal chain which creates most poor children? The answer could be different for different groups of people.
Now the solution should reflect that. If money is problem, then free contraceptives will solve it. If the culture or the religion is the problem, the only solution would be to somehow undermine given culture or religion at least in this aspect.
But the worst option is many poor people having the “meh, the tomorrow does not really exist” attitude. In which case, even if the contraceptives are freely distributed on every corner, and everyone is legally required to have thousands of them in home… these people would not use them anyway.
On the other hand, if infertility could somehow be made a default option, with just a trivial inconvenience to remove it (such as distributing contraception through air and providing a free pill to reverse the effect), these people would probably never reproduce. I just can’t imagine a real implementation of that.
“A conclusion is the place where one stopped thinking.”
If the poor have that attitude, why do they have it? If it’s the culture, where did the culture come from?
Some poor people are simply people with very low intelligence. Not low enough to be in some institution, but low enough to do stupid things that a) make them poor, and b) make them unlikely to use contraceptives however free and accessible, even in the case they don’t really want to have children.
Possible solution: Provide free food to people. With contraceptives. Make this fact known. Expect outrage (not from the people who will eat the food, but from people who will use this opportunity to signal their moral superiority over you).
Some people have inherited a culture that does not value education and long-term planning. Historically, this culture came to my country centuries ago from a different place (where perhaps, in given time, it was not as disastrous as it is here and now). But looking at individuals, this culture comes from the previous generations.
Possible solution: If I had one, I would be going for my Nobel price now, instead of commenting on LessWrong. The solution would have to be not just realistic, but also politically acceptable, which is almost impossible given the connotations. (You know who else proposed solutions? Nazis did.)
If we remove the “politically acceptable” part, then a possible solution would be mandatory education for one generation. And by mandatory education I do not mean the usual mandatory school attendance, which we already have, and which is largely without an effect for given groups, because they easily undermine it. The pressure to learn from school would have to be greater than the pressure to not learn from home. Which would require some serious brainwashing and possibly isolation from home for longer periods of time. (Note: The “brainwashing” could be realized gently, e.g. through movies that depict smart and diligent heroes, and stupid contemptible villains.)
Or, perhaps, it’s an optimal choice given a bad situation.
If you are relatively uncertain that any one child will survive and prosper, and you want to maximize the chance of having grandchildren, you have many children — which means starting early, too. Likewise, if you have limited access to health care, and you want to bear children at the time that it’s medically safest for you to do so, late teenage years are preferable over early thirties.
Oh — and if it worked for your own parents (and those of others around you), it’s evidently an effective strategy.
(We tend to overestimate the degree to which people’s actions are due to the kind of person they are, and underestimate the degree to which they’re due to their situation. To correct for this, when we see people in a particular situation behaving in a particular way, we should try explaining the behavior with the situation before introducing third causes such as that they are unusually stupid or short-sighted people.)
Optimal from evolutionary or psychological viewpoint? Because that’s not the same thing. What historically increased the frequency of genes of my ancestors is not always the same thing that makes me most happy now.
Even assuming that poor people having many children is best for their genes, it does not automatically mean that it makes them happy, and that they want it.
Nor does it mean that their genes are ‘best’ for the species to have in our environment, although of course that’s unpalatable to say on the whole about anyone.
Good point. But in any event, we shouldn’t infer that because someone makes a choice that we think we wouldn’t make, that this indicates that they are deficient (in intelligence, self-control, etc.)