J.O — ORIGINAL WORK

2 December 2024

Persuasive Essay

Should Governments Be Allowed to Impose Population Control Policies?

Population control policies are based on concerns over lack of resources, environmental destruction, and economic instability. While these concerns are more than fair, governments should address them while keeping basic human rights in mind. Population control policies affect personal freedoms, harm marginalised communities, and don’t address the root causes of the lack of resources. Because of this, governments should not impose population control policies because they violate human rights, enforce inequality, and oversimplify complex issues. Instead, the focus should be on sustainable solutions that provide progress rather than unethical forms of population control.

To start, population control policies go against the basic rights of individuals to make decisions about their reproductive lives. This is shown in article 16 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) created on December 10th 1948, which declares that individuals “have the right to marry and to found a family.” Nevertheless, harmful measures, such as forced sterilizations or birth restrictions, violate this article. The one-child policy in China, for example, demonstrated how these policies could lead to human rights abuse. Families faced forced sterilizations, abortions, and punishment for disobedience, causing emotional and psychological trauma across generations. Kenneth Pletcher from Britannica argues that the one-child policy undervalued human life, particularly the lives of female children, due to cultural preferences for boys. This policy also left many parents with limited support in their old age, as a single child was expected to carry the burden. By enforcing such policies, governments took autonomy from individuals, treating citizens as means to an end rather than humans with rights who deserve respect.

Furthermore, population control policies usually target vulnerable populations, impacting ethnic minorities, women, and poorer communities. From 2013 to 2014, India’s government implemented a sterilisation campaign that targeted these communities. While being promoted as a solution to economic underdevelopment, the campaign used tactics like bribery and force. In the end, 4 million sterilisations were completed, with less than 100,000 being done on men, creating harm and oppression rather than a genuine attempt at lowering the population. While a policy may not be promoted as inherently unequal, those in better positions can easily find loopholes and solutions. These families also rely less on their children to support the family, meaning they are rarely affected by these policies in a way that causes the family financial detriment.

That being said, arguments in favour of population control are usually caused by fear of resource shortages and lack of environmental sustainability. However, this perspective oversimplifies the problem by comparing population size with resource consumption. A report by Oxfam International in 2023 revealed that the richest 10% of the global population was responsible for 50% of all carbon emissions, while the richest 1% contributed 16%. This means only 34% is the result of the rest of the population, emphasiing the fact that over consumption in rich countries, not overpopulation in developing countries, is the main cause of resource insufficiency and environmental destruction. Addressing inequality and creating sustainable solutions are more ethical and effective approaches than simply restricting reproductive rights.

Finally, access to education and healthcare, including family planning services and voluntary birth control, are better alternatives to population control policies. When individuals—especially women—have access to contraception and healthcare, families are able to make better and informed decisions. This not only respects individual autonomy, but could lead to the desired economic and social stability of other policies. By addressing the root causes of high fertility rates, such as poverty, youth dependency, and lack of education, governments can achieve a sustainable population without using harmful practices. Allowing states to affect reproductivity is dangerous, creating a precedent that could potentially lead to other forms of control. Going back to China’s one-child policy, not only were reproductive rights restricted, but states gained control over citizens’ private lives, including housing, employment, and healthcare. Once this happens, it can be difficult to reverse, creating long-term risks to individual freedoms and trust in government.

While looking at issues like resource scarcity and environmental destruction is important, population control policies are unethical and harmful. These policies harm basic human rights and marginalized communities, and fail to address the root causes of over consumption and inequality. Instead, governments should focus on providing education, healthcare, and sustainable solutions. This way, countries can achieve progress while maintaining human rights.

Works Cited

Biswas, Soutik. “India’s Dark History of Sterilisation.” BBC News, BBC, 14 Nov. 2014, 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790.

Oxfam International. “Richest 1% Emit as Much Planet-Heating Pollution as Two-Thirds of

Humanity.” Oxfam International, 20 Nov. 2023, https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-planet-heating-pollution-two-thirds-humanity.

Pletcher, Kenneth. “Consequences of China’s One-Child Policy.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 29

Oct. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy/Consequences-of-Chinas-one-child-policy.

United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, 1948,

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.