Population Ethics

Lianos and Pseiridis (2016) – Sustainable welfare and optimum population size
This paper attempts to estimate the level of “sustainable welfare” globally: namely, a level of consumption that can be enjoyed by future generations in perpetuity. Based on available measures of ecological footprint and biocapacity and assuming an acceptable level of per capita consumption, they estimate the maximum level of world population possible without damaging the natural productive capacity of Earth at 3.1 billion people. Hence they find Earth, at 7.6 billion current population, grossly overpopulated, along with most of the fifty largest countries around the world. They emphasize the need to educate people about the need to reduce world population and more controversially, for a centralized government entity to take the lead in coordinating national efforts to do so.

Hickey et al. (2016) –  Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change
The authors argue that contrary to political and philosophical consensus, the threats posed by climate change justify population engineering: the intentional manipulation of the size and structure of human populations. Specifically, they defend three types of policies aimed at reducing fertility rates: (1) choice enhancement, (2) preference adjustment, and (3) incentivization. The authors argue against coercion or morally objectionable manipulation of people, and for significant freedom for individuals to choose how many children to have. Yet they conclude that policies to reduce fertility rates are pragmatically and morally justified—and perhaps even required—tools for preventing the harms of global climate change.

Dillard (2007) – Rethinking the procreative right 
Do we have the right to procreate freely without regard to others? This article redefines the right as satiable and narrow, acknowledging the competing rights and duties that both qualify and justify the right. It posits that the procreative right, properly stated, includes at least the act of replacing oneself and at most procreation up to a point that optimizes the public good.

Gudorf (2001) – Resymbolizing Life: Religion on Population and Environment 
How do we increase demand for contraception? Gudorf observes that for many Christians the sanctity of life has narrowed to a focus on birth, rather than sustainable maintenance of communities of life. In medieval Christendom birth was regarded positively as a symbol of life, but that was balanced by negative associations: in theology birth was linked to original sin; and in common experience a large proportion of infants died. In recent centuries those negative aspects have faded, making it difficult to resist a modern idolatry treating birth as an unalloyed good to be maximised. Gudorf calls for new religious symbols and customs to emphasise instead the sustaining of life and its habitat on earth.