Seeking to solve the population problem from such viewpoint may mean placing a limit on the free economic activities of advanced liberal societies and advanced liberalism states. However, following such policy may meet the two urgent global demands of solving the population problem and attaining sustainable development in view of maintaining balance between reproductive health and reproductive rights while simultaneously achieving both economic development and environmental conservation all over the world. It is only after this is attained that the best path for human survival will be presented to us.

　

I think that this concept of reproductive health/rights should be carried out as an effective and ingenious policy in spite of its potentially large impact on economic and environmental issues.

　

As easy as it is to put this into words, its actual implementation will generate enormous controversy. An example of this is China's one-child policy. I think we have representative from China here today, so your attention will be very much appreciated.

　

When the Fourth World Conference on Women (FWCW) was held in China in 1995, China's one-child policy came under criticism from the Western countries. Even Mrs. Clinton came to the conference and criticised China's one-child policy, condemning that it is an infringement of human rights in the greatest magnitude − particularly the rights of women − and that such policy should not be implemented. However, the Chinese government did not budge an inch. The country continues to implement her one-child policy with very strong confidence.

　

The stance that the Chinese government took was similar to her response against the criticism she had received earlier from overseas during the crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square. I think the fundamental human right that was mainly at issue at the time was freedom of speech. The Chinese government came under criticism for infringing on freedom of speech. America was at the forefront of such criticism. But the Chinese government was adamant. China argued that, for China, fundamental human rights meant "people staying alive without starving to death". They also said that they can do without human rights that would become a hindrance to people's survival. Surprisingly, this stance had won the support of the Chinese people.

　

Based on the approach I have just mentioned, Western criticism would not apply to China's one-child policy. In reality, the Chinese government can be praised for implementing a very ingenious population control policy similar to that put into practice by the U.N. One-child policy has actually succeeded in controlling population to a considerable degree. It has played a part in realising the prosperity and economic development China is enjoying today. Improvement of health condition in the country has also been remarkable.

　

Various efforts must have been made to realise this. There was an expression "Look East". Now people are looking at China. China is currently on an ever-improving path and I see one-child policy as one of the factors behind this prosperity.

　

In another lecture today, there was a comment that China's one-child policy is not necessarily succeeding − that it is only practiced in urban areas and not practiced in rural areas. Such regional difference may indeed exist, but I think it is producing significant results on the whole. In this sense, from the standpoint of bioethics, I think it is unreasonable to criticise China's one-child policy on the basis of fundamental human rights. Rather, I think we should applaud them for having implemented a good policy.

　

China's one-child policy is accompanied by another serious problem of eugenics. Although the Chinese government has not made any definite comments regarding this point, such trend can be clearly seen in the actual policy it is implementing. It is a mind-set that requires the one child born to a family to be eugenically superior. There exists an implicit mentality to avoid giving birth to a child with hereditary problems and have only eugenically superior child since you can only have one child.

　

Eugenics is a globally infamous concept. There are still quite a number of people today who would be upset by simply hearing the word "eugenics". In particular, Jewish people who were persecuted by the Nazi on the grounds of eugenics will become furious if someone uses the word "eugenics". Thus "eugenics" has become a taboo word that should not be used.

　

Also, from the viewpoint of bioethics, in other words the fundamental human rights I have been talking about, eugenics containing discrimination clearly constitutes an infringement of fundamental human rights. Even if eugenics did not correspond to the so-called racial discrimination, it is regarded as a serious infringement of fundamental human rights because it would lead to discrimination of handicapped children and people with hereditary illnesses.

　

However, I feel an urge to defend China in this area as well because I think that there is an element here that is similar to reproductive health. What is reproductive health or reproduction of healthy population? For instance, one may ask himself whether being born with some kind of genetically determined disease is reproduction of healthy population. I must ask you to pay attention to the fact that I am not saying this with the intent of discriminating handicapped children. When such children are born, we must help them with utmost consideration and make efforts so that they can enjoy fundamental human rights of all kinds. It is a matter of course.

　

However, the action that is taken before such child is born is another matter. Granted that you recognise the individuality of fetuses, women have the right to make the choice of whether or not to give birth. Moreover, if an eugenic element is included in the choice made by the woman in question in the form of education or consideration − and not in the form of coercion − it should not by any means be regarded as a taboo. I would like to think that eugenic element should be utilised in the concept of reproductive health by bringing this matter into the population problem.

　

In other words, China's one-child policy − although I feel slightly uneasy about its coercive colour − should not necessarily be subject to criticism in that regard as well. China's population problem and one-child policy contain these serious problems as tangible problems. While they appear to contradict internationally-accepted ideas on the surface, my idea is that it is surprisingly compatible with the U.N.'s effort to develop "health" which is a social element, and "rights", which is intrinsically an individual element, in a balanced manner through the concept of reproductive health/rights.

　

Now, population problem started out as being a very simple problem at first. All one had to do was control the population. However, as Dr. Ogawa had mentioned in his presentation, there are countries that are suffering from decreasing population. Population problem used to be limited almost exclusively to developing countries, but this problem of decreasing population is the problem of the developed countries. Fertility rate has dropped considerably in some of the developed countries. Among the many reasons for such decrease, economic capability and substantiation of education appear to be dominant. In other words, I think the idea that it is better not to increase population if one is to seek healthy life for himself or his family has been established as common sense in the society. Economic affluence surely had an effect on this, and suggests that lowering of infant mortality rate brought about by medicine and health status and spreading of education have occurred as a result

　

Then we will understand that blindly trying to control population is not the proper way when thinking about the population problem of the future. It is necessary to see the whole picture and develop the entirety in a well-balanced manner.

　

What does "well-balanced development" boil down to when you are dealing with the population problem? I would like to propose a new way of thinking here. I think we should drop the idea of controlling population and take a new approach of designing population for the future.

　

Increasing population where it is needed and decreasing it where it is needed, instead of trying to controlling it. I think it is necessary to design the course of population in a balanced manner by thinking about "how humanity should survive" and "how humanity should make a living" on this planet as a whole, instead of simply increasing or decreasing it. That would involve economic problems, environmental problems and problems about application of medicine and technology in accordance with the characteristics of each region. There are also political problems. A new mind-set for designing the balance of optimal population for the entire earth by taking all of these matters into consideration and formulating policies for controlling and mobilising population according to such design is needed. "Formulation of population design and policy" is considered to be the urgent task that has been placed upon future population conferences.

　

I started my presentation by talking about bioethics and ethics. After touching on various subjects, I will now come back the question of what ethics is and would like to redefine ethics by dramatically changing the conventional ideas about ethics.

　

In short, "ethics" is a "skill for social adjustment". Imposing some absolute values or supreme virtue is not "ethics". Rather, it can be seen as a skill for value adjustment skill for the purpose of enabling the society to function properly, i.e. maintaining the entire society towards the future by avoiding crises.

　

Applying this idea to bioethics, the purpose of adjusting the society through bioethics boils down to "survival". Humanity is now facing the risk of survival. People have never been conscious of their own survival in the past. People have been living by thinking that they will keep living no matter what − that nature will reduce the population if it increases beyond the limit.

　

But this will not hold true in the future. I think that we will have to actively design our own future. The purpose of such design is "survival of humanity". It is this human survival that is at risk. We will have to avoid such risk and make adjustments to the society so that people can survive in a balanced manner. We will have to develop social adjustment skills particularly in the field of life phenomena and life activities. That is the population problem as I see it in the context of bioethics.

　

Survival may give rise to assertion of individual rights in an attempt to achieve the goal by hook or crook. It is possible that the strong will achieve the goal of survival by trampling down the weak. There is no justification for social adjustment being made in such manner. Although we will be facing a very difficult problem, I think there is now a need to make social adjustments for the survival of the entire humanity while preventing socially disadvantaged people from being treated unfairly compared to the socially advantaged people. I think that the viewpoint of reproductive health/right will become extremely valuable in this respect.

　

In closing, I would like to make some radical proposals that may sound slightly bizarre with regard to the measures that should be taken towards the future in order to fully carry out the social adjustment including the population problem.

　

First, we will have to back up the concept of liberalism considerably. The alternative that would be available to us would be a new form of communitarianism. In other words, I think that we will not be able to carry out social adjustment in global scale − including that for the population problem − unless we place considerable restriction on individual freedom from the viewpoint of community. It will be replaced by the viewpoint of community. Individual freedom will no longer be absolute and will have to be restricted considerable from the viewpoint of community. There are various types of communities. A community can be formed when several people get together. When a new country is formed, it will be a community. If you look at the earth, you can say that all life existing on the planet are forming a single community. I think that an attempt to carry out social adjustment at any stage would entail thinking from a holistic viewpoint of maintaining and preserving the entire society. Although you may find this to be a totalitarian approach, I am feeling the need for switchover to such communitarian way of thinking as we look at the population problems in the future.