Culling animals whose population is considered excessive...?

Question

How long before we begin to cull our own species, not by war, famine or disease, but actually take the decision to cut down our numbers before we have no space left to grow enough food to feed us all? If it is ethically OK for us to take the decision to control population size in other species, why would it be so wrong to ensure our own 'survival of the fittest' by having a cull of the weaker human members of our population?
(Before you get all hot and bothered, I'm not suggesting that it is a good option, I just want to know how it stands as a resolution to increasing population in a moral stance).

I ask this question with one fact in mind, the human population has doubled from 3000million to 6000million in 40 years. We have never experienced so much war, disease, and ill-distributed assets yet the population expansion is out running the usual limiting factors due to better health care in many nations. We do not choose to control birth in other species, we choose to obliterate any we feel are more than neccesary.

How long before it is no longer considered an immoral propsition (I get that it is going on in certain Nations but it is still denied as fact by the majority).

THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT MORALITY NOT WETHER IT'S CURRENTLY OCCURING!!!!! How long until it's OK to murder your Granny or your offspring????
Using abortion as a means of contraception has been occurring for years but it is only recently that it has not been regarded by the masses as abhorant.

Answer 1

I used to be a subscriber of active population control, by mandatory governmental enforcement of reproductive limits, when I was an ideological teenager. However, having matured since then, and having garnered more information concerning our planet, I feel that having societal injunctions to curb birth rates is not only immoral, it is also impractical. Furthermore, such a stance does not fully realize the breadth of human ingenuity when it comes to resolving issues of increasing demand by an ever-growing population.

First, I would dismiss the notion that the destruction of animal life and that of human life, for means of population control, are morally equivalent. It is sad that I have to explain this when it should be self-evident. Of course what do you expect in an era lacking in moral and religious education; were subjects concerning the human condition like philosophy and theology are relegated to trivialities all for the sake of profitable amoral academic pursuits such as math and science. From a religious perspective, Christians, Jews and Muslims, don’t believe that animals of have souls. Hence, being purely corporeal entities, without a spiritual essence, they have less value than that of a human being.

Of course, I understand that other religions (Buddhism and Hinduism most notably) don’t adhere to this view. Furthermore, secularists don’t acknowledge the spiritual element as having a valid contention in public discourse. So my argument goes further than the Judeo-Christian moral framework.

First from a secularist perspective, human beings cannot be ferreted out and selectively eliminated on the basis of some weakness, because unlike animals, we do have moral agency, or put more simply, we can discern between right and wrong. Hence, every human being, regardless of his or her intellectual or physical shortcoming, can contribute something to society on moral grounds, were an animal cannot.

Secondly, we all are intellectually, psychologically, and artistically unique. Hence, any set of premises used to decipher who is weak and eligible for destruction, and who is not, would invariably eliminate those who could contribute to society greatly in a way that the selection criteria did not account for. For example, if we base the eligibility to live and reproduce on the basis of ones physical prowess, that could result in the destruction of such valuable figures like mammoth intellect Stephen Hawkings who suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease, or the murder of an artistic geniuses like Steve Wonder or Ray Charles, both who suffer from blindness. If we preserve only the intellectually and artistically gifted, how about those whose genetic stock are of such strength, that they can produce healthy resilient people. Despite all our advancement, the backbone of much of our civilization still resides in the hands of those who do manual labor, and that requires a physically powerful gene pool.

Lets say you come up with a system that takes into account all those factors, it certainly can’t predict the future. After all, we can never predict whether the feeble person could produce a physically gifted child, or whether the nonacademic, could produce the next Einstein. Are we willing to risk the destruction of those who could potentially contribute so much? Even if we focus population control on assessing the performance of those who are alive and “under perform”, we know the great capacity for people to change, and therefore cannot be sure that our selection of who will live and who will die will be the best decision. The 25 year old who is a delinquent now, may at 40, become the next great entrepreneur who starts a business that employs millions of people. The 70 year old who is in a wheel chair, maybe the person, who in the future, will be instrumental in resolving a major global conflict.

Now compare that with the controlled population of deer through regulated hunting, or any other animal. What difference does it make between killing one deer as oppose to another, there is nothing truly unique about each deer, that makes the loss of one detrimental to the planet as a whole. It is the uniqueness of every human being, and the potential for each and every one of them to contribute greatly to our society, that should deter anyone from thinking about a culling of the human population.

With the moral equivalence of controlling the human population in the same way the animal population dismissed, lets look at it from a pragmatic standpoint. The purposeful annihilation of a group of people, or the coercive restriction of the number of offspring one is allowed to have, will result in turmoil. Who would stand for it? Who is qualified to draft such selection criteria? Wouldn’t such a test be slanted to favor the rich? Wouldn’t a society that imposes such a standard have to repressive by nature? Keep in mind the one government in the world that comes closest to forcefully having population limits is China, and they happen to be one of greatest violators of civil rights. Also be aware that the one society that systematically executed people on this basis of physical criteria, along with racial categories, was Nazi Germany. Do you we really want to emulate societies that are this despotic and heinous? It takes nations as brutal as Communist China and Nazi Germany to successfully enforce such policies.

Finally, I think much of the talk of the eminent threat of an ever increasing human population, doesn’t take into account that much of the ills attributed to population growth have not so much to do with population growth as the inefficient use of land, and the corruption of the elite few who seek to sustain a monopoly over excess resources. There is still plenty of this planet that is left desolate that can be utilized for the benefit of man. Secondly, the equitable distribution of wealth, greater access to resources, coupled with technological advances from ingenious societies will mitigate much of the suffering that is caused currently.

Answer 2

culling humans has already been done by various governments to eradicate certain races, religions or diseases. Nazi extermination of the jewish race, the gypsies and the disabled are infamous. African countries regularly go to war to exterminate a rival tribe. Many ponder as to the origin of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and around the world as a means to eradicate the immoral (i do not subscribe to this personally but on the other hand it wouldnt surprise me). Non intervention by western governments to redistribute food mountains could be considered as culling by omission perhaps.
Canada had a very right wing philosophy on disease and disorder and sterilised thousands of people deemed to be inadequate, which is not quite culling but getting there.
I think it will be only a matter of time before resources become tangeably finite and wars will erupt to gain control over these limiting necessities - culling of the population say via a new disease may be the modus operandus. China not only abort non permitted pregnancy, they are allowed to kill the child just prior to birth by injecting poison into the crowning head. Thats public culling. There are many instances of poor families leaving dead foetus' in the street.
I am sure that there are governments out there that have culled a few thousand of their citizens in attempts to rouse the rest of the population to war - war unites a country against an outside enemy diverting the people's attention away from governmental corruption and political shenanigans. Sounds somehow familiar....

Answer 3

You might be interested in knowing that - seriously and not - this question has been around for a long time. From the Inuit leaving their elders on ice flows to some of the atrocities of the nazi regime. I don't believe there is a solid answer on your question, because of all the various moral issues involved (religious and otherwise - some people don't even believe that culling out overpopulated animals is a good idea). You might also enjoy the following link, from the 1700's.

Answer 4

The moral issues can be repugnant as far as population control for humans is concerned.

I favor using birth control and abortion for all population control measures, teaching all teens to develop habits to always use two or three methods of birth control their entire lives rather than committing murder on existing people.

Regardless of their physical condition or age, I don't look at any human as 'weaker' or 'stronger' because we all have unique contributions to make. Look at Stephen Hawking; in any scenario where physical limitations would be used to 'cull' from already born people, he would certainly not have survived, and the loss to the world would be incalculable.

The only exceptions I might be persuaded to make would be in behalf of approving the death penalty for serial offenders of a violent nature.

Answer 5

This is already being done in China, there is a mandatory one child per couple rule if you have two or more you suffer financial penalties in the form of taxation. This is the main reason for the incredibly high number of abortions in China, since tradition prefers males to females (females demand a dowry) many female fetuses get aborted.

I'd say that pretty much classifies as culling our species.

Answer 6

The entire population of man could stand on the isle of man (5 billion) if each person had 1 square foot of space. We have a long way to go yet before we have to cull mankind

Answer 7

War has typically determined who has access to resources in times of shortage. I don't think th atwe would ever deliberately cull our human populations, but war is a social necessity, and will continue to be a major determiner in the grand scheme.

We are in no danger of a world wide food shortage. We produce more calories of food than we could ever consume, but distributing this food is a major problem, and will always be a source of political tension.

Answer 8

Absolutely! Start the cull now. Lets start with politicians and anyone associated with politicians and see if that makes the world a better place.
Next its insurance salesmen, estate agents, and then golfers.
haha

Answer 9

That it is why it works best at the front end (limiting the number of children you have) than at the other end (everyone over 65 dies)

I'm not advocating mandatory abortions, but a better sense and awareness of one's responsibility is called for.

Answer 10

Dear this is already being done... Sorry you didn't realize this before....If you don't know what I am talking about think about China ...Japan...India...And yes some people just do it now because they aren't having the sex of the child they wanted, here in America...

Answer 11

They might cull for food. Perhaps by choosing avatars?