Visiting Philosophy Lecturer: Pro-Natalist Policy Interventions Are Illegitimate

On Monday, April 6, Professor Luara Ferracioli of the University of Sydney Philosophy Department gave a lecture titled “Depopulation: an ethical perspective,” in the basement of Goldwin Smith Hall. 

The lecture explored whether it was legitimate for liberal states to use various policy tools to encourage procreation, such as baby bonuses or tax exemptions. Countries such as Hungary, France, and Poland have already adopted measures to this end.

In Australia and other liberal democracies, depopulation is increasingly relevant. Dr. Ferracioli, a philosopher, would “not let the demographers and the social scientists have the final word.” 

Dr. Ferracioli emphasized that many unexpected Global South states also are beginning to suffer from this problem, threatening the inter-age-group social contract upon which many societies, including our own, are based, of which the Social Security payment system crisis facing the United States is one example.

A future of fewer people, Dr. Ferracioli said, would mean fewer workers supporting more retirees, increased pressure on pensions, healthcare, and social services, and younger generations facing declining economic prospects.

Dr.Ferracioli disputed that a declining population would be beneficial for the environment. “We necessarily have less resources to complete the transition to net zero, the transition we need to decarbonize our economy,” she said.

The professor did not believe that retirement age changes and productivity increases possessed the capacity to solve depopulation. The solution cannot lie in just shifting burdens to the old either, she held.

“There are goods of old age… there’s something we all lose if we shift the cost to our elderly fellow citizens” Dr. Ferracioli stated.

Only more births or higher immigration can adequately address the challenge posed by depopulation, Dr. Ferracioli stated.

Dr. Ferracioli next examined the “Replacement Migration Strategy” discussed in a 2019 paper by Dr. Paul Bou-Habib, professor of government at the University of Essex.

Unlike babies who need social services for two to three decades, migrants would be able to work straight away, the presentation held. Additionally, migrants live in low–emission countries for much of their lives.

Problems with the strategy that were brought up include the fact that most states in the global south either do not produce enough skilled migrants to fulfill the strategy, such as Niger, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia, or produce skilled migrants but are facing population issues of their own, such as Argentina, Chile, the Philippines, India, and the professor’s own country of birth, Brazil.

Only one country, Pakistan, was indicated as a country that produces many skilled potential migrants and has a sufficiently high birth rate. “There’s not enough Pakistan to go around,” Dr. Ferracioli stated.

The professor also leveled a feasibility critique against the “Replacement Migration Strategy.” Anti-immigration sentiments, the professor stated, were in part the cause of Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, making it hard to actually execute this strategy.

“Whatever explains anti-immigration sentiments, it is hard to imagine such sentiments disappearing… in the decades to come.”

Pro-Natalist Policy: Legitimate or Illegitimate?

Professor Ferracioli argued that pro-natalist policies had to meet three versions of the anti-natalist challenge in order to be legitimate. She went on to argue that liberal democratic states might be able to meet the first two challenges, but not the third.

The talk progressed through each challenge, presenting the argument of each one in order to properly evaluate it, and then responding to it either with a refutation or by accepting the argument of the challenge.

The first challenge is the universal anti-natalism of David Benatar, the author of Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, which holds that there is a moral duty not to procreate, because not enjoying the benefits of existence is not harmful, but that bringing someone into existence creates someone who experiences pain and therefore causes harm. According to this view the absence of a benefit is not bad unless it is a deprivation for someone.

However, this argument falls short when considering that the potential suffering a new consciousness might experience can be under some conditions balanced by enjoyment of goods such that procreation is morally permissible.

The fact that liberal societies have low rates of serious harm, such as murder, and guarantee basic rights that allow people to change unpleasant aspects of their lives means it is relatively easy within such societies to fulfill this requirement compared to other societies, the professor held. Procreation can be considered permissible if one’s child can be foreseen to enjoy enough meaningful activities in order to make the unavoidable harms of existing worthwhile.

The second challenge, called Historical Anti-Natalism, argues that we are at this particular historical moment at a time when ecological collapse appears imminent.

According to this view, “Procreative parenting is morally akin to eco-gluttony.” An analogy was given of a Mars base crew composed of five people and with exactly enough supplies for those five. Two members of that colony choosing to create a child that cannot be supported are akin to “eco-gluttonous” parents on Earth according to this view.

Professor Ferracioli’s response to this argument disputed the idea that citizens had an external mission to serve the interest of the whole earth. Furthermore, some liberal societies have decided to achieve net-zero carbon emissions and undertake the sacrifices necessary to do so.

According to the third challenge, Contextual Anti-Natalism, the permissibility of procreation hinges on the willingness of parents to bear the costs and make the sacrifices that allow their children to have meaningful and sustainable upbringings, which many existing incompetent parents cannot or will not do.

Liberal democracies were held to be unable to meet this challenge. “But liberal democratic states cannot discriminate between competent and incompetent parents; any policy that strongly promotes births across the board promotes wrongdoing because there will always be parents who are not fit to parent.” 

Individuals are capable of determining whether they’re capable of bringing up their children in a way that satisfies this framework, but not the state, Ferracioli held. The situation is analogous to bringing drinks to a work event when one knows that one’s colleagues are violent drunks and enjoyers of drunk driving. 

Thus, the professor concluded that pro-natalist policies are illegitimate for liberal societies. 

Our response to depopulation may be intertwined with our response to climate migration, Dr. Ferracioli stated.