Population control could either be promoting births (if the world is underpopulated and we want more people to be able to live lives) or trying to restrict them (if the world is overpopulated and there aren’t enough resources, etc.). It could also aim to encourage certain births and discourage others, including the creation of genetically modified humans.

Policies may have to take stances on Population ethics.

“Dysgenic” pressure

Nick Bostrom says¹:

It is possible that advanced civilized society is dependent on there being a sufficiently large fraction of intellectually talented individuals. Currently it seems that there is a negative correlation in some places between intellectual achievement and fertility. If such selection were to operate over a long period of time, we might evolve into a less brainy but more fertile species, homo philoprogenitus (“lover of many offspring”).
However, contrary to what such considerations might lead one to suspect, IQ scores have actually been increasing dramatically over the past century. This is known as the Flynn effect; see e.g. [51,52]. It’s not yet settled whether this corresponds to real gains in important intellectual functions.
Moreover, genetic engineering is rapidly approaching the point where it will become possible to give parents the choice of endowing their offspring with genes that correlate with intellectual capacity, physical health, longevity, and other desirable traits.
In any case, the time-scale for human natural genetic evolution seems much too grand for such developments to have any significant effect before other developments will have made the issue moot [19,39].

Importance

FIXME

Tractability

FIXME

Neglectedness

FIXME

See also

• Sperm donation
• Having children
• Migration

External links

• Discussion about eugenics on Quora
• Discussion of genetically modifying humans in chapter 2 of Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies.
• Overpopulation or Underpopulation
• Future of Humanity Institute Population Ethics project
• See also Bryan Caplan (Selfish Reasons to have More Kids) and Julian Simon
• The “family planning” section of My Cause Selection: Thomas Mather
• Eugenics, Ready or Not

• File on juliansimon.com:

  The real population problem, then, is not that there are too many people or that too many babies are being born. The problem is that others must support each additional person before that person contributes in turn to the well-being of others.

  Which is more weighty, the burden or the boon? That depends on the economic conditions and institutions, which we shall discuss at some length. But also, to a startling degree, the decision about whether the overall effect of a child or migrant is positive or negative depends on the values of whoever is making the judgment - your preference to spend a dollar now rather than to wait for a dollar-plus-something in twenty or thirty years, your preferences for having more or fewer wild animals alive as opposed to more or fewer human beings alive, and so on. Population growth is a problem, but not just a problem; it is a boon, but not just a boon. So your values are all-important in judging the net effect of population growth, and deciding whether there are too many or too few people.

• http://effective-altruism.com/ea/u0/why_dont_many_effective_altruists_work_on_natural/
• The Genius Famine: Why we need Geniuses, why they are dying out and why we need them by Edward Dutton and Bruce Charlton
• https://www.facebook.com/groups/effective.altruists/permalink/1548020275254324/
• Fertility: The Big Problem by Robin Hanson

• Three car seats?