I didn't win on the 33rd Eisaku Sato Essay contest, 2017 (about Demography and the United Nations). Here's the essay I wrote:
Essay Title:
Are all things considered?
Abstract:
As an answer to the theme question of this year, i. e. how the United Nations should cope with recent demographic challenges due to unwished trends, I'm not only giving a consise answer to this question, but also suggest an approach based on philosophy independent from people, places and times, i. e. let it be compatible with the best. It is more interesting to discuss this problem as a domestical issue, so I included that in the essay, and refer to it when writing about the United Nations. Notwithstanding what the majority may vote, Ethics or the Good „God” always has veto power (or freedom not to enforce the laws made by others), and the world is not for the Evil.
Are all things considered?
Where the problems of demography are coming from? Are they coming from a significant difference of genetical traits in people, like some Nazis might have thought, or are they coming from cultural differences that are the result of injustice in the political systems? I think we have no right to judge until we tried to make the political systems more fair (for example, I respect some gypsies for their environmentally friendly low-level activities, but others hate them for similar reasons). Demographic issues are just a subtopic of problems in Political Ethics, and it's not possible to solve them perfectly without solving all the other problems they depend on. This means that a good answer in political ethics should always fit in a plan for a good political system. Injustice will probably exist, however, and it's unethical, as it's hard to be Ethical in all respects, and people often have to use the „principle of lesser evil”. Maybe the Nazis had stopped at this point, and thought: „there will be conflict anyway, and it's easier to win it when we know our men by appearance”. War is not the best solution for the long term, however, as it would quicken harmful technological changes, so it is not part of a good political system, and consequently, it is not the best solution to demographic issues either! As the existence of different animal species is considered good, a xenophobic war could only make things worse, and did not solve anything for the long term, except from survival to that point, maybe, if necessary. The goal should not be confused with the method, and probably even the Nazis could admit that Nazism was a method to invite much more people to the army, almost the entire nation, according to military theories of their times. This was not about philosophical plans for long-term peace (i. e. Political System), but practical improvisation for short-term success. Success, however, is relative to its agent, but the United Nations should support all members equally, by the way. Otherwise, not every people possess the knowledge that is necessary for being Ethical, as Socrates might have said, „Virtue is Knowledge”. This also applies to the knowledge of good political systems, and their reasons. As knowledge increases, the available ethical choices diminish, and some of the former decisions might have to be modified in some degree. For example, the knowledge of good political systems might urge us to make many of our other ethical decisions compatible with the achievement of such a system. This is also true in case of the demographical questions, the actual topic of this essay...
If the United Nations were wrong, or imperfect, then the theme of the 33rd Eisaku Sato Essay Contest could not be perfectly answered either. Thus the discussion of our topic shall be twofold: first discover general truth independent from the actual formation, or actually defining it (as Kant's „League of Nations” idea tried that, for example), then try to apply this in our times to the United Nations, as the actual theme description suggests... so let's begin. In my view, Demographics depends more on economy, and less on culture. This insight comes from my own life: I did not get any wife before I was 34 years old, probably for economic reasons. As it did not seem ethical to strongly pay court to a woman in my position, I did not even venture it, just focused on success and mutual interest on online love finders, which turned to be evil for their licenses, by the way. If I lived alone, my success rates could have been much better. Consequently, I deduced that the size of population is mainly limited by the high costs of living (building, maintenance, overhead expenses) in developed countries. Subsidies and benefits made with the intention of increasing population size do not help, as they usually support those who live below the acceptable standard of living (like many of the gypsies), and like to reproduce even in those circumstances. Economists had long pointed out that this will lead to overpopulation and suffering. That's why the costs of living shall be reduced as a form of subsidy instead of giving blind aid to the people with children. As for the gypsies in extreme poverty, they could afford to live on the same standard of living as common men by the plan mentioned here, and probably they would even do so, and be assimilated into the greater society. This could also help some of the lonely Japanese people to move away from their parents and cure depression thereby (consequently, both the rich and the poor classes could have benefited from this kind of solution). It's possible that without leaving their parents, they cannot find a spouse (or cannot practice business they like). Without finding a good spouse, children are not desired. Thus it can be argued that subsidy on the costs of living would matter more urge towards procreating than subsidy based on the number of children. If this is true, then it is also true that Politicians are responsible for some of the sins that poor people like gypsies do, at least in some degree, which can be greater than 50%. There are not many people who do not accept the opportunities which could mean a win in their lives. This time only the wisest ones would think about the loss of an even greater victory (as a temptation from the Devil, or something like that). As Demography depends on this, it primarily depends on internal affairs or domestic issues, not on international relations. It is possible that low fertility is the revenge of God for injustice in human society (in case it harms sinners more), and injustice is a domestic issue in the first place. Emigration can also be caused by injustice inside the country, when starting a new business is hard. The one-child-policy is also a law of a country (China), not of a greater entity, as this is so strict that makes it unethical to force on political powers or independent communities. Therefore, when searching for good solutions to demographic challenges, we should keep in mind that they are often originated in countries (for their common good), not in diplomatic circles made of agents commissioned for selfish purposes (of one member). In the migrant crisis of 2015-2016, Hungary was such a 'solver' country for obsession (either good or bad) and compulsion. Otherwise it's not sure that politicians will take care of the problems of the world (as problems outside their office) when they could also improve their own countries instead to get the job done well. If the employees of the United Nations were only composed of agents working for countries, the state of the art would not be much better in the field of creative ideas for the common good, I think, and Policy Institutes (also known as: think tanks) could carry more hope than official politicians. They could also try to prove such statements as 'competition due to immigration reduces the growth of the original population, so reducing immigration could increase birth rates'.
For the sake of the common good, it may be really necessary to solve demographic issues by global agreements, to avoid migration problems like we experienced in 2015-2016 CE. This is important as long as there is a risk of war or unwanted migration between countries, and some people might intentionally increase their (male) population size before conquest. Other threat is like the Iron Curtain of the Cold War, not allowing even tourists into other countries by default for mutual distrust, and this way limiting the accessibility of the wonders of the Earth like those called 'World Heritage Sites', as well as famous routes that would prove the maps. In our present world system of countries, therefore, peaceful agreements (like laws) between countries are necessary for the sustainability of the system, and the United Nations organization would make it easier. However, it gets harder again after the United Nations gets alternatives like the G8, G20, the European Union, etc. or maybe even a future organization that will really be better (as a successor of the League of Nations too), and no one knows which one is more important (for example, an Alliance of Small Nations could be a reasonable alternative for those who take it seriously, maybe with unconditional or involuntary membership to make it available to anyone). It's possible that the best solution to the demographic problems fits to an UN-like organization with slightly different rules.
Global agreements shall ideally not force anything, but remain 'agreements'. Otherwise they could build something like the Roman Catholic Church that is hard to change afterwards by 'grassroots' efforts. This is also for ethical philosophy: when something is philosophically evil, and the majority forces the minority to do it, then the majority commits a sin against God, which might lead to some kind of active or passive revenge. In such cases (especially in democratic states with domestic issues) the decision-makers, even more like talk-show hosts, could personally feel the drawbacks of the decision (instead of those they represent or help), and their only protection is that there are too few talented people who wants to be a politician.
Agreements shall not be underestimated, however. Even agreements can be voted democratically, and enforced only by those who voted for it (or even by the others if that's better for them too). Just all agreements should contain some clauses about the things which shall NOT be done with or allowed from those countries which do not enforce the agreement (however, enforcement by activities could kill the organization and therefore, not supported). Embargo, for example, is such a peaceful enforcement. This way it would work in a similar way as unwritten laws: enforcement is done by the community, and in this case, the member countries. When we know that there is nothing else we can ethically do, just some kind of agreement, then thinking time about other solutions can be reduced and the solution made quicker. Now, how could we tackle the demographic problems with this constraint of method?
When it is not ethical to force sending migrants to allied countries as a kind of more equal distribution (as it was planned in the European Union), it could still be ethical to make this a 'liberal' agreement instead of a 'democratically' voted measure, by some kind of 'penalty' or 'alternative choice' for those who do not comply. For example, 'if your country do not accept migrants, ours will send you less money'. There are not two, but more options this way: vote and agree; disagree and exit the organization, or disagree and accept the 'penalty', i. e. that they could deny some new things from us in their land (and the latter also includes the former). The passive penalty (denial, cease) is good because it naturally limits the extent of harm they can cause to member countries, and this way keeps the organization together (it also looks justice, by the way). Moreover, it might also be possible to disagree and vote again after the conditions (of bargain) change.
The United Nations organization should educate politicians and the people about Demography (and other issues) like I tried to do in this essay, but gathering the most beneficial scientific papers with good licences (with endorsement only by employees, not officially), and it could also search for or research solutions like an open policy institute to write the missing ones. When good Science gets weight, more people can relate to it, argue or act accordingly. Public Science is still better than Artifical Intelligence behind the curtains. The United Nations organization should organize (officially initiate) agreements, embargos or similar measures (for discussion and voting) when countries do evil according to the theories in the featured scientific papers (as an office for global common good), and it could recruit more peacekeepers who can be on the spot (not to rule, but to defend or destroy). However, the United Nations should not force anything, as it would endanger the sustainability and the perfection (i. e. justice) of the organization, so it cannot stop wandering migrants alone. In other words, it should have part of the legislative power (some of the reasonable suggestions for discussion) in international law (i. e. voluntary agreements), without any governing (ruling, controlling) power. Unless there are people who work on the global common good officially, it could happen that everyone expects others to work on these problems, but everyone is just doing their own job. Their own job, however, might be in conflict with absolute ethics, as they serve interest groups instead of philosophical rules. As a consequence, phenomena are sometimes not what they seem to be, and this is another reason why the United Nations should not control domestic issues of its members.
