Population Control
I'm taking an environmental communication class, and we discuss a wide range of really interesting issues. One topic that's come up in light of the octuplet birth in California is the idea of population control. Population control might not be something we have to worry about for hundreds of years, so it won't be us, but rather it will become the problem of our grandchildren or their grandchildren.
Imagine a world even more crowded than it is today. I'm not really afraid of crowds, but I have an aversion. I tend to avoid the grocery store at prime shopping hours, such as the few hours when people are leaving work, or right before a winter storm approaches, or even in the hours leading up to a football game. I don't love parades, lines or any other place where I might end up a sardine. It's easy enough now to avoid these situations, but what about in the future?
It won't be long until we've filled the earth, and so then what?
An overpopulated planet risks resource depletion, limited food supply and more waste. It's easy to foresee a point in time where there are more people than there are homes or places to build homes. So what's the solution to population control? After being asked to ponder this same question, I realized there's no easy answer. How can a nation enforce population control without compromising one's morals and religious beliefs or without squandering basic human rights? Perhaps, we could start to think of this as a serious issue now, before it becomes one, and start a campaign that encourages individuals to limit their breeding in the name of common good. That was my best idea, but I wonder if readers have any better alternatives.
Comments
Anonymous
Thu, 02/12/2009 - 14:18
Permalink
Our culture devalues
Our culture devalues childlessness. We equate morality, community responsibility, stability, and forethought with being parents. The phrases: "he's a family man," or "she's a wonderful mother," can stand alone as simple explanations for the depth of a person's character.
Conversely, choosing to remain childless can raise, at best, eyebrows, at worst, suspicion.
When was the last time that you saw a single and/or childless candidate (male or female) win a popular election?
We value children to the point that we give parents significant tax breaks and then provide billions of dollars in services for their children. Our public school and health systems are collapsing under the weight of all those kids.
To start turning things around, limit those tax breaks. Provide dependent tax credits for up to two birth children, then stop. If you choose to have more kids, you pay for more kids.
Realistically, will this happen? Probably not in my lifetime. But by threatening to hit people in their pocketbooks, we might at least get their attention.
Anonymous
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 00:01
Permalink
I admire anon's intellectual
I admire anon's intellectual integrity in correctly pointing out if one is truely concerned about ppulaton control the logical choice is to forgo children. I do take excption to the overburdened educational system as its child burden is now signifigantly less than the 1950s and 1960s as a percentage of population and arguably worse. And our healthcare issues are only begining. With unrealistic expectations regarding the prolongation of life at the core of the problem. 70% of a lifetimes worth of care delivered in this country is in the last year of life. While healthy living diet and exercise and health care do impact longevity. In the End we all will die and that last year will come for all of us. Social security needs to be ammended from the ponzie scheme it has evolved into-- dependent on a stable or increasing working contributor pool. When first instituted in the 1930s 65 was beyond average life expectancy and the age now needs to be 80-85 or a decrease in benefits needs to happen or and increase in working members of society contributing. Increased immigration may also help here.