Hi again Keith; thanks again for the reply. I think a comment on the idea of 'voluntary' birth control via irreversible methods might be useful. Looking at evidence from around the world (China might be a good example), there seems to be a sort of progression in how these programmes develop. It goes something like; 'Do this if you want to', then 'We will provide the means for you to do this if you want to', then 'It would be more socially responsible if you did this', then 'Most people are doing this, why aren't you?', then 'If you don't do this there will be penalties', then 'You must do this', and finally 'We have the right to do this to you'. This progression doesn't just apply to birth control, it can be seen in things like the environmental movement and any number of political initiatives. The problem comes when you have unelected agencies involved who lack the breadth of vision and the moral compass; they can run through this progression at a frightening rate without considering the wider or longer-term consequences. Their unelected nature makes them immune from the pressures of public opinion, and other democratic checks and balances don't apply.
I don't know if you've seen the stuff on population growth and economic dominance, but there is a comparison between America and India that makes interesting reading; because of birth rate differences, India has more Honours students than America has kids. Educational standards are evening out across the world, and so in a global economic environment dominated by knowledge workers, there is a vested interest for Western developed economies in lobbying for (or providing aid for) limited population growth in those economies likely to be rivals or even dominant players. Organisations like the Galton Institute at the very least give a cloak of respectability to this agenda, whether they intend to or not. 'Pulling up the ladder' I think is the term used. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Tim