Bangladesh is one of the least developed countries of the world. Rapid
increase of population causes government to declare it as the number one problem and major
impediment to economic development and progress. With an area of 1,47,570 sq km — a
size little less than that of the state of Illinois, USA the country’s population has
almost tripled to the present 125 million from the 1951 figure. In education, health and
housing sectors, the expenditure of the government was about one-third of its total
expenditure (1995-96 FY). (1) This huge amount had to be
spent merely to provide the country's large population with some basic requirements of
life. The per capita GNP is US$ 283 and electricity consumption rate is 90 kwh, infant
mortality rate is 81.8 per housand, life expectation at birth is 56 years, literacy rate
is 37% there is only one telephone per 380 people — these data indicate that
Bangladesh is far behind the developed countries in respect of the physical quality of
life. One of the main reasons of this bleak picutre of Bangladesh is its inability to keep
the number of people within tolerable limits. In this condition it is not desirable that
people will knowingly produce children who would most likely live a life not worthy of
living — a life so miserable that it would be better not having been born at all.
Narveson thinks that unhappiness that a prospective person will
experience constitutes a moral reason not to bring her or him (2)
into existence while happiness which she or he is likely to experience if born provides no
moral reason to produce her or him. Morality seeks to promote good and avoid harm or
prevent suffering. Not harming people takes moral preference than benefitting them. A
moral justification, therefore, exists to avoid conception so that a probable child would
not be in abject poverty or suffer any form of adversities. The condition of Bangladesh
indicates that the individual or people who will come into existence in future will very
likely experience abject poverty or adversities as the socio-economic and environmental
condition of this country is very poor. So, there is moral justification to limit the
birth of new people in Bangladesh.
The quality of life which is morally desirable does not consist in the
mere satisfaction of the basic necessities of life. It consists in having the best things.
According to Parfit, the best categories of creative activity and aesthetic experience,
the best relationship between different individuals as well as other things which
contribute most to make life worth living constitute the best things wherein lies the
higher quality of life. (3) While life is of lower quality
where there exists "worse housing, overcrowded school, more pollution, less unspoilt
countryside, fewer opportunities and smaller share per person of various other kinds of
resources". (4) Man's unique ability of adjusting
herself/himself with the severe adversities does not imply that serious deprivation is the
end of human life. As a human being people have a right to live a life composed of best
things. At the same time they should have the freedom and ability to choose whether or not
to have that life.
Procreative right is a basic human right which is universally
recognized. It is declared in the UN charter that "All couples and individuals have
the basic right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their
children and to have the information, education and means to do so; the responsibility of
couples and individuals in the exercise of this right takes into account the needs of
their living and future children and their responsibilities toward the community". (5)
It is declared that this right should be exercised `responsibly' implying that in order to
achieve common good couples or individuals should consider the overall circumstances of
the society. The high density of population with little job opportunities in villages push
people towards cities causing there even higher density and scarcity of accommodation
which in turn leads to the growth of slums in city areas. The slums are barely livable and
are often the source of unsocial activities. These create health hazards and pollute the
environment.
The population projection of Bangladesh indicates that if the present
rate (1.88%) of population growth (6) continues then the
population will increase to 131.4, 158.3, 229.7 and 846.1 millions in the years 2000,
2010, 2030 and 2100 respectively with the corresponding population density of 912, 1099,
1595 and 5875 per sq. km. Such increase in population will create tremendous pressure on
the existing limited natural resources accompanying with it various social and
environmental problems and consequently degrading the quality of life in near and further
future. A lower population growth rate of say 1 per cent will make the task of planners
and executors easier for improving the quality of life through better resource management
and technology adoption. But technology does not create basic resources, it only
diversifies products and makes the means of production more efficient. The conception of
technology as the saviour is now treated with reservations because the application of
technological inventions and innovations are not all blessings. Acid rain, green house
effect, ozone layer depletion and long lived radio-active wastes are acute instances of
diverse effects of technology. But the need for technological inventions will increase
with the increase of human numbers. More people, therefore, means additional application
of new and innovated technology with the possibility of affecting the environment
adversely. The forest cover of Bangladesh has been reduced to about 6 per cent of the
total area from 22 per cent over the last forty-five years. (7)
The rapid rate of population growth is mainly responsible for deforestation since it
necessitates the clearance of forest to meet the requirement of food and habitation of the
growing population. The main victim of such deforestation is the biodiversity as species
are lost for ever. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council reported that at least 500
different medical plants are on the verge of extinction. The loss of such huge diversity
of plant genetic resources by destroying natural forests is a grave ecological loss for
the world as a whole besides Bangladesh. Hence, the greater is the human number, the
greater will be the adverse effect on environment and consequent degradation of the
quality of life of both present and future generation. Majority of the people of
Bangladesh cannot think of having the best things that make life go better or best. They
are mainly concerned with the satisfaction of the basic necessities of life. Even that
would be difficult since population growth has reduced the land-man ratio to 0.11 ha in
1990 from 0.13 ha in 1981. (8) So the amount of per capita
food will decrease while increasing the landless population. A large number of people are,
therefore, ill fed or under fed. Insufficient intake of calories and the hidden hunger of
micronutrient stunt the size of an average Bangladeshi. The per capita consumption of 30
million people is less than 1900 calories at present against the standard requirement of
2300 calories. The health service sector is poor and finds it difficult to keep pace with
the ever increasing population.These figures demonstrate that it is hard for most people
even to satisfy the bare needs of life. In such a circumstance, if the people of
Bangladesh exercise their reproductive right according to their wish wihtout any
restriction then it would limit their some other basic rights recognized by the state as
well as by the UN. Some of these rights are freedom from hunger, poverty, ignorance, fear
and the right to an adequate standard of living whcih includes adequate food, clothing and
housing and continuous improvement of living conditions. (9)
In the context of Bangladesh, these rights are more pressing than the right to procreate.
Right is a kind of claim and being claim, a right can be outweighed by other more
justifiable claims or rights. It, therefore, follows that like all other rights
reproductive right can be outweighed by more justifiable rights. The state may restrict
the procreative right of the individual since its duty is to promote common good. Instead
of having best things in life, people rather live a life barely worth living. The major
cause is the number of people which put pressure on limited resources and curtail the
development programmes of Bangladesh so that the expenses for satisfying the basic needs
of its growing population can be made.
Generally it is held that reproduction is a private matter but
examination of the issue reveals that the production of a child is not confined to parents
only. It involves society or state. The responsibility of the state or society is to
provide proper environment for the balanced development of children. Public service is
required even at gestational stage through maternities, hospitals, clinics etc. As the
majority of the people of Bangladesh are poor, the large portion of the cost of these
services is borne by the state which inhibits the plan for a better life of the people of
Bangladesh. So, for the promotion of public welfare, justice and equality control of
reproductive right appears morally permissible.
Freedom is of great concern in the domain of morality. When an
individual is able to do an action without any restriction, then he is free. But absolute
freedom is not possible. Generally by free act we mean that a person can do otherwise.
Freedom requires two things: absence of constraint and presence of option. People have the
freedom to choose the number of children they want to have. But in the UN declaration of
reproductive right emphasis is given on the responsibility of the individuals. People
should take into account the common good in choosing freely. Freedom contains no value
when individuals are ignorant or burdened with the duty of satisfing the basic
necessities. It is not possible to guarantee freedom without guaranteeing its worth.
Morality requires that to ensure freedom, economic well-being of the individual must be
guaranteed. No question of freedom of choice arises in a situation where people have no
alternative but to satisfy the basic needs of life. Compulsory population limitation
programme is morally objectionable. But policies which indirectly restrict freedom to
procreate in order to improve the quality of life of people are justifiable on the ground
that freedom is of little value if individuals are unable to take its advantage. We are
not arguing for the total rejection of freedom of poor people regarding procreation. We
are arguing only for the limitation of the number of children couples may have. The
question may arise whether incentive programmes affect the autonomy of people regarding
reproductive decisions. There exists such a probability since the purpose of the programme
is to influence the reproductive decision of people for having fewer children. It is found
that the economic condition of many least developed countries like Bangladesh is such that
a poor women has to produce a proof of sterilization in order to have emergency food. (10)
The satisfaction of people’s most fundamental need is possible by sacrificing their
right to procreate. This shows that freedom is of no worth if people are unable to
exercise it. The usual practice of giving primacy to freedom is to be set aside until
particular material level of well-being is attained where freedom can be exercised
meaningfully. It can be argued that in a sense, freedom is enhanced by population control
measures by increasing the opportunities for choice. The couples are offered greater
freedom since these measures enable them to decide when or whether to have a child or not.
The ability to avoid unwanted pregnancies and spacing of births have given freedom of
choice to millions of women throughout the world including Bangladesh.
Derek Parfit's formulation of the argument known as the identity
problem (11) causes difficulty for the arguments to control
population growth. According to it, the timing of conception determines a person's
identity. A woman cannot postpone conception because a different child would be born if
she conceives at a later time than at an earlier time. The postponement is needed as the
woman’s temporary illness will cause her conception of any child at present to be
deformed. Ordinarily the decision would be the postponement of conception with the common
belief that the same child will be born irrespective of the timing of conception. But the
identity problem makes it clear that the same child would not be born wherein the problem
lies. The adoption of laissez faire policy would not make people worse off but the
adoption of the population control policy to provide better living conditions, less
crowded state of the world would lead to their non-existence. This is a sort of paradox as
the policies which diminish the quality of life of people living in future cannot be
criticized since that will be against these people’s interest. Their existence is not
worse than never having existed. Kavka (12) attempts to
counter this with the help of a slave-child example. A couple agreed to produce a child to
be a slave on being paid $ 50,000 which they needed to buy a yacht. They can justify their
action on the ground that living a slave life is better than not being existed. But the
wrongness of couple's act remains strong because when there is option for the couple to
have a free child or no child they have no right to produce a slave child in any context.
This is an undesirable state of the world in terms of the criterion called restricted
life. A restricted life, according to Kavka is the one where there is absence of one or
more of the major characteristics which generally make life valuable or worth living.The
absence of liberty makes the life of the slave child restricted. Kant's second from of
categorical imperative modified by Kavka states that rational beings or their creation,
that is, their being brought into existence cannot be treated as means but as ends in
themselves. The couple's action with respect to the slave child amounts to treating of the
child only as a means to their ends and, therefore, condemned by the modified version of
categorical imperative. For various reasons, people have to live restricted lives.
According to Kavka, if the conditions of a society or world (other things being equal) are
such that people have to live restricted lives, then such conditions are undesirable from
moral perspective.
In the absence of a social security system and adequate income
opportunity along with the desire for survival, a large number of children are brought
into existence by the people of Bangladesh as the means of security of their lives. The
general practice is that sons would look after the parents during their old age. Besides
majority of the parents of Bangladesh do not care about the proper unbringing of their
children, they do not spend much in this regard. They are treating the children as means
to their ends which is morally wrong. There is need to maintain a balance between the
number of people and the available resources of the country so that prospective
individuals would not have to be used as means. The argument of the restricted life and
modified version of Kant's second form of categorical imperative show that there is need
of controlling the rapid rate of population increase of Bangladesh so that people do not
have to live restricted life or be used as means which is morally undesirable.
The implications of utilitarianism is concerned with the growth of
population. Of the two forms of utilitarianism — total and average utility, the total
principle of utility gives too much importance to population increase and ultimately leads
to such enormous population who are all worse off and the situation, Parfit thinks is
considered repugnant by most people. Mere addition of people whose quality of life is
below the level of life of existing population also involves repugnant conclusion. It is
argued that such conclusion should be rejected on the basis of the nature of life that
people should live. (13) Morality requires that every human
being should equally enjoy the satisfaction of basic human needs and amenities with the
freedom and opportunities and provisions for having the best things in life if she or he
wants. We cannot well-come a situation where there exists various sorts of scarcities and
adversities arising due to the acceptance of the total principle or mere addition of
people and thereby deteriorating quality of life. It is not morally desirable to bring
into existence a huge number of people at the minimum level of resources and
opportunities.
Maternal mortality rate and the infant mortality rate are higher in
Bangladesh compared to other countries of the world. The condition of the society should
be such that more people do not suffer or die young since a situation is morally worse
where more people suffer or die young. (14) In Bangladesh
huge number of people come into existence and suffer from different types of adversities
or dying young. Though excessive population growth is not the only reason, yet it is one
of the principal reasons for such a situation. The size of the population is enormously
big for the limited resources of the country. It is not morally desirable to sustain a
huge number of people at a low quality of living. In the context of remote future, it may
not be possible to sustain even a very low growth rate of 0.1 per cent since it will
mathematically lead to an unacceptable population density of 18 persons per sq. meter in
10,000 years' time. The growth rate should be compatible with resource and time in order
to achieve the quality of life for the total population of Bangladesh desired from the
moral point of view. We have limited resources, lack technologically competent persons and
unable to conserve environment properly. It is not possible to have actual freedom in such
a situation rather it makes life restricted. Both freedom and human well-being are
important but in real life situations we cannot always have both. It, therefore, follows
from the above discussion that the control of rapid rate of population growth of
Bangladesh is morally justified.
|
