A Plea for Population Control
What a perfectly optimistic way to begin the new year, via Hampton Univeristy Professor Cuker in Dailypress.com:
Jesus shared the earth with no more than 400 million other souls, Thomas Jefferson with about 1 billion contemporaries, and at projected population growth rates, our children will live with 9 billion others by mid-century. Such rapid population growth can not go on endlessly. Humans, like all other species, can only populate up to the carrying capacity of the environment. Carrying capacity is set by availability of resources (food, water, places to live) and sometimes by the build-up of toxic metabolic wastes. However, as populations approach their carrying capacity, growth often slows as a consequence of increased mortality and lower birth rates due to disease, competition and malnutrition. And for humans we can add the scourge of wars fought for controlling limited resources.
Our children will live in a much better world if human population growth is checked by the rational decision to reduce family size, rather than by famine, epidemics and war. [snip]
When contemplating ways to reduce your carbon footprint, be sure to include contraception on the list along with fluorescent light bulbs and a hybrid car.
Support candidates for public office who embrace family planning and the environment. Regulate the number of your own children. To leave a better world for those you create, vote wisely, conserve and love thoughtfully.
Lots of interesting comments below the article. My two cents:
$0.01 = Those advocating population control are never the first to volunteer to leave the planet.
$0.01 = Since 2004, US per-capita growth is neutral (2.0 kids). All our growth, as in much of the industrialized world, is by immigration. US population is a small fraction of world population growth.
Oh, and “Love thoughtfully” in the same commentary as a plea for population control? That’s just fascinating. At least he admits there was a Jesus.
[Don’s other habitat is evangelicalecologist.com]
Comments
#1 2008-01-02 22:03 (Reply)
“$0.01 = Those advocating population control are never the first to volunteer to leave the planet.”
That’s because the people who argue for population control do so because they don’t want to have to compete for the resources that may be in greater demand. Presumably because they know that they won’t be able to because they lack the intellectual capacity to formulate effective strategies for obtaining such resources. Either that or they don’t like to share.
“When contemplating ways to reduce your carbon footprint, be sure to include contraception on the list along with fluorescent light bulbs and a hybrid car.”
“Support candidates for public office who embrace family planning and the environment. Regulate the number of your own children.”
But seriously, the idea that a woman should abort a pregnancy because of the carbon footprint that the new baby would create is, in my opinion, vile. What is more vile is that doing so would qualify a woman for sainthood in the church of liberalism.
#2 2008-01-03 19:19 (Reply)
Juxtapose this with Mark Steyn’s “America Alone” book and his ‘demographics is destiny’ theme. The Muslims and the Third World will continue to reproduce while educated liberals and those they’ve brainwashed with this devilish doctrine slough into obscurity.
#3 2008-01-05 16:40 (Reply)
In response to Don Bosch’s article on population control:
The thought process of this artice is very selfish. It makes me very angry. It talks about limiting famiy size like children are dogs or something! The idea that limiting the amount of people on this earth will solve poverty, epidemics and war is false. Until society is more generous, there will always be poverty because no matter how well we economically plan unexpected things happen. Sickness and suffering are natural parts of life. Our Lord was subject to them. We need suffering. It is only through suffering that our souls will receive eternal life. Limiting the amount of people on this earth will not bring peace to the peoples that are left. This idea is very naive. We must work out the problems and differences in philosophies between nations. War is always the last option, but it is an option.
The state of life a person is born into doesn’t matter. What matters is that they are born. Living is always better than not living. Can you imagine all the ideas and potential we have killed in this nation alone through abortion and birth control. We have killed many great presidents, teachers, officers, mothers and fathers. We have killed people who could have been great doctors and found the cure to many diseases. We have killed persons who could have been world leaders. They could have resolved many world issues. No, we should not be stopping the birth of more children. If anything, that’s what this world needs. More persons! We obviously aren’t doing the greatest job. Why not give other people a chance to solve life’s many difficult problems.
Most importantly, we should not ignore God’s gifts. Bringing more lives into this world is how God helps it. We must keep in mind that God governs the world and those in it (that means us). We keep trying to think that we’re in charge. No matter how much we ignore God and his gifts (children), it doesn’t change the fact that God is God. He is in charge.
#4 2008-01-16 15:04 (Reply)
What an issue. Maybe its true that limiting births when (arguably) the world can still support it might rob us of great thinkers who might be able to solve this problem, but don’t we all have a responsibility to live in a manner gives a chance to generations that follow? There must be a way to help with population control without abortions and infanticide, while still not playing God. We ran an issue-of-the-day about this, and might be worth checking out for more discussion. Tough issue, almost impossible to talk about! but necessary.
http://theissue.com/issue/5818.html
Cheers, Nick
The Issue
#5 2008-02-26 07:53 (Reply)
Not to speak unkindly to the ulta zillion eggs and sperms out there. We mere mortal humans are able to make a choice not to be checked or thumped on the head by so-called invisible gods who want to turn this planet into their favorite play pen for raising humans like insects in smaller and smaller quarters in bigger and bigger cities, under the guise of familiar brood caring church priests.
I see no wrong morally or ethically or whatever, at curbing the human population at the 10 billion mark. In terms of selfishness(whatever this is?) we as humans owe it to ourselves and to our children, and their children to evolve - become highly evolved beings. That is the first requirement of existence - evolve. Now, there are going to be those jerks who will continually knock the human pop. down by wars. Bad seeds can be handled through DNA examination - many months prior to birth (think of the peaceful walks we would all have).
I believe that Mother Earth has a standard = specific number she will dance with. Anymore, like 14 billion, she will spill her beer. And then everyone is off- think Vesuvius 24/7.
I have no shame in saying that all religion is just a method of cattle control. The question is are we going to all be immortal happy billionaires or quaint little subjects of some decadent nefarious empire of parasitical hoods, who want to fatten their war chests with more human cannon fodder - misery?
#6 2008-03-25 06:32 (Reply)
Population Control DOES NOT protect the Environment
The huge hole in the calling for population control is the idea that it will somehow protect the Earth. This has been show wrong by the current situation. Most of the nations with low or negative population growth have been more of the world resources and putting out more of the worldwide pollution than nations with high population growth.
This is because pollution and resource use is directly related to economic activity. Not everyone in the world makes use of coal power plants (for electric power). In China, known around the world for its population control policy, 1 new coal power plant is completed per week. This is because the number of coal power plants built are not done so in relation to population but to changing economic (industrial and consumption) habits
China is noted for NOT growing its population growing as it industrializes, yet there is an “explosion” in the levels of pollution it puts into the world.
Some economists even argue for lowering population growth so that the resources put towards educating and caring for new members of society could be put towards economic growth-notice that this not done out of respect for the environment (which is often harmed by this very economic growth).
#7 2008-04-22 23:44 (Reply)
I noticed I had a few typos. Sorry about that, but I think my point can still be understood.