CR-Ex: 4.3

Intros

1.) There are over 6 billion people on planet Earth today. That number will grow by as much as half say experts in the field of global population. And despite all of the war, death and Infant Mortality Rates lowering around the world, we still can’t seem to reduce the population pattern. So that means over 9 BILLION people would inhabit this planet; don’t you think we already have enough economic troubles, crime, disagreement and just plain unbalance in the world? Wouldn’t it be great to have less people to think about, without doing by means of holocaust, degradation and division? Could we not all agree that living in a more balanced and peaceful place would be a good thing. What needs to happen is nationwide cooperation in finding what or who is most at fault, and then, without war, resolve the issue. Some people say that we need more people in the USA because it will give us a better chance at bringing up the next genius or great inventor. The truth is that overpopulation leads to nothing more than warring countries and with each person added to the population, it means fewer resources for the rest of us.

2.) Imagine this is your life…There are policies in act in the world that force people to limit themselves to only one child, and your country is a part of it. You must attain a license for the second and if you get pregnant with a third, forced abortion and killing of the child is required no matter how far along that child is. After that, sterilization of one or both parents is performed—willingly or unwillingly. All of this because the government says there are just too many people in their country and around the world. How would you like it if this was your daily reality? Constantly feed by fear and humiliation. This is the reality in China, and although something like this probably will never happen in America, there is a chance that some form of population restriction, enforced by the government, may be required if we don’t face the crisis now and wait until it is too late.

CR-Ex: 4.2 Steps 3, 4, 5, 6

Reclaiming Your Topic

Step 3

My initial reason for wanting to do a paper on overpopulation was that I thought it was a problem. I would see people running around with 6 or 7 kids and most of them expected the American Gov't to pay for it. I thought that was wrong and selfish. Now after my research, I've found that there are plenty of other reasons to be concerned and worrisome about overpopulation. And what really seems to be the problem is our bad habit of consuming everything and never giving back. Which is really what I was upset with by people having 6 or 7 kids. Before my research I thought that I would write this very crafty paper on how people were evil and how the government was trying to take over the world and it's resource; but now, even if that's true, I don't care about it! Period! If that's what they plan to do, oh well. I now just want to write to the American citizens as a plea of sorts, asking them to reconsider their stance of what they consider "freedom". Would they rather have all their fun now and leave nothing for future generations, or would they rather limit themselves ever so slightly in order for us all to have a better future and give a better future to those upcoming generations. I think that people would be more interested in reading something optimistic, instead of all that conspiracy theory stuff.

Step 4

--Moments, Stories, People, and Scenes--

The most prominent story that sticks out in my mind every time I think about this topic is one of a Chinese woman, who although herself had children, was head of the Population Enforcements in China. She had done all these terrible things to women who were pregnant without a license or had gone beyond their "limit" of children. She enforced killings of children and ruined families altogether. After some time she came to the realization that what she was doing was extreme and very wrong and warped. So she stopped. I just find it hard to believe that suddenly one day you find it to be wrong, but that's the amount of influence China has on it's ppl I guess. Another thing that stands out is why ppl might have big families. While I was looking through my notes I noticed that several places described people having numerous family members so that when the time came, the elders would be taken care of. So if we had a government program--one that wasn't warped like some gov't projects--that really took care of people in their old age, we might not be faced with huge family sizes...but that is only in America and other affluent countries. I don't see Iraq caring for it's people like this. This is such a mess, this overpopulation stuff! If one thing works for a certain populace, then it completely ruins another. There is no perfect answer, I don't think. There is a lot of talk about how we should give people incentives and/or decentives. That seems to stand out... This seems like the fairest and most American thing to do. Giving tax breaks or something of that nature to Americans is huge...they love that stuff...and they also hate to BE taxed. So incorporating something like that depending on how many children you have might work.

Step 5

Is population control really necessary?

Yes I think it is. Our population has been increasing and will increase by 3 million people by 2050. We have used so many resources and keep taking from our planet that it will eventually run out! Either we control population now, or we suffer later on.

What do you mean by "suffer later on"? What will happen?

For example, water...the basic element of life here on planet Earth. We are using it up at a rapid rate and eventually we will be fighting over clean drinking water like animals in the Sahara! And if wars over things like water and warmth, like we do now with oil, things are going to get real ugly, real fast. Then life as we know it would stop...No trading would be happening, no importing/exporting, thing you would be used to would be a thing of the past. Worst case scenario, we would be set up in camps and might even resort to civil war with our neighbors!

Well that sounds kind of extreme! How soon are these events going to happen?? How do we prevent them??

I don't believe that events of that nature will come about in the near future, but it is definitely and possibility. Since we already are taking precautions against global warming, waste, and conserving water, things shouldn't be that bad. How we prevent them is up to us, the American people. It seems that the things we do stand out to other nations and impress them, whether that be good or bad. If we take the initiative and find a solution that fits most people's lives, the human race should prosper.

Isn't true that the more people you have the more minds you have to utilize??

That may be true, but isn't also true that is you focus on a few minds instead of numerous minds, that those few minds will learn more in a shorter amount of time. In other words, if America would put all it's current resources used for education into fewer people, those people will get a better education. Instead, we choose to educate EVERYBODY, whether they want to or not. It's a huge strain on the system and having fewer people would solve that.

Step 6

So What?

If we stop our "super consuming" we can leave something for future generations. And since over consumption is a direct result of overpopulation, we need to reduce our population in affluent countries like America, while keeping American values in mind.

Proposal II

Midway Proposal

As stated in my blog and on our Discussion Board, I originally wanted to examine the relationship between the governments of the world and overpopulation. Well, after a while that got to be as boring as it sounds. There was very limited information by narrowing my topic that much. Now, after researching a bit about overpopulation and noticing what seems to be the real stressor of the population situation, I’ve decided to compare overpopulation and over consumption to distinguish which is the bigger problem. My focus will be to weigh whether countries that use little resources, but that have large family size or countries that use massive amounts of resources, but have smaller family size are more at fault. This seems to be the most prominent issue for me personally.

After looking at most of my surveys, it is clear that some of the people were near clueless about the current population growth and the risk for overpopulation—and what’s worse is that I can tell they didn’t care a great deal. Those that knew something about the population crisis, I could tell, didn’t understand some things or were getting their facts mixed up. In order to resolve this, my key audience for this paper—if for no other reason than personally satisfaction—are American citizens, which probably have very similar beliefs as my survey takers. One of my main goals for this paper is to educate my audience effectively. I take having an audience to please very seriously, and in order to do that I believe I will have to compromise. I don’t want to use the “shock and awe” approach for this paper—although that would be very easy to do. Instead I’d like to imagine my paper being read by American citizens wanting answers that stick to American values, yet are effective. So in my compromise I expect understanding from them that this issue is not just going to go away and never have to be solved. In other words, of all the solutions I might suggest in the paper, there isn’t one magic result that will make all people happy and I need people to understand that at the end of this paper.

My second goal would be to really learn something, myself from this paper. I’ve already learned quite a bit, but I really want to have an “a-ha” moment with this paper and that normal comes during the writing of the paper not the research, so I’m excited about that. That’s just kind of a personal goal for me—I’m not sure how to explain the “a-ha moment”—but I think it’s worth mentioning.

I see my paper having different “parts”, much like most research papers I imagine. For the first part of my paper—not the intro, but the body—I would like to explain exactly what overpopulation is and how it is the same and how it differs from over consumption. After that, I’d like to get to the meat of the paper by asking who is at fault and needs to work toward fixing the problem. I imagine the final answer will be “all of us on the planet, big or small”. With that, I can use the survey information to show that a varied amount of people either believe that it’s other country’s faults or that it is a shared responsibility. I want to get across that America is not blameless. I think as American’s we get to thinking that about everything. By comparing those of us in developed countries to people in undeveloped countries I think I can make a big impact on people and their preconceived ideas about overpopulation and where it stems from.

Some things that may influence my writing and attitude in the paper are my strong opinions on some of these subjects. China’s policy of the one child per family is fine for China—they’re used to that amount of control. But forced abortion is not something that sits well with me at all! I don’t believe in abortion, period, even in America where we’re supposed to be pro “choice”. I think it’s awful and people should have to take responsibility for themselves and not take it out on that life. I don’t consider myself a conservative, but that just makes me mad. Although I believe population should be controlled, it shouldn’t be “controlled” in that manner. One of my other opinions on this topic—which I’ve put in my notes a million times—is that any solution that is designed for America needs to be “American” enough for our citizens. That’s what I meant by compromising with the audience, earlier. I can’t just propose to the audience that we should give the Government control over of bodies and minds in order to reduce population. That may work elsewhere, but to make Americans comfortable enough with the idea I think talking about matters that concern Americans like voting, improving health care and schools, and reducing waste will improve their overall thoughts on overpopulation/over consumption in America.

To conclude, I don’t think this paper will end up with one concrete answer. It takes a lot bigger people than me to get a ball like that rolling. I just want to get it in the minds and thoughts of the people. And for the cynics and doomsayers, I want to let them know that it’s not as bad of an issue as you might think…as long as we do something now! We’ve already taken precautions against global warming, wastes produced, and resources used—so why not look at population growth and how that effects our consumption in developed areas of the world? And why haven’t we looked at this issue like any other American problem and fix it, instead of tippy-toeing around it? There’s plenty that needs to be examined and worked out, but in the end I think all of this is going to make for a great research paper.

An Exploration of Eugenics

Chapter 15

Population Control Today



The long effort of the eugenics movement to get "more from the fit and less from the unfit" is by no means ended, although both parts of this program are frequently overlooked. The savage and bloody part, of course, is the assault on the "unfit," the unwanted, the surplus people, the useless bread gobblers. (Seems like it will end up taking one extreme or another.... a Socialist Party or "Darwin's Law" theory put to the test. WHY CAN'T it just be about bettering our CURRENT situation??? I'm an extreme person, but most aren't...that's a problem. But then why do poor, poor people "deserve" to be poor???...They don't, simply. But can we have the "middle" class and the rich, affluent/elitist class and be happy, or will mid-class people be pissed about being the new "poor" class?? If I know anything, it's that people are never happy/content.) Some of this elitist selection goes on within the United States, but most of it occurs overseas. This does not mean, though, that Americans can leave the problem to others; the American government has promoted racist population control policies for decades. Some Americans today argue that we should take care of our own problems, and not try to fix the world. Other people, including most churches, urge a more generous engagement with the entire human family. But even the new isolationists must admit that since the United States pushed depopulation programs for decades, we have an obligation to undo the damage. So what is population control, and where is it a problem? For many years now, the worst population control program has been in China. The Chinese government decided to reduce population, and set out to do so systematically, with an official policy of permitting only one child per family. The policy has had loopholes at various times for various reasons; for example, the ethnic Mongolians are treated more leniently. But the policy is nationwide, and it is very strict. The Chinese family policy uses forced abortion, forced sterilization and forced insertion of IUDs. Family planning workers monitor menstrual periods for the women in their assigned areas or workplaces, and start to ask questions when a woman misses her period. In some factories, menstrual periods are charted on the wall, so that everyone can keep track of everyone else. (I think this could be used effectively as a "long quote"--not that I know what that is exactly. It pretty much explains things in a language most of us understand. I think taking the time to paraphrase would be silly in this case when it's all there already. DON'T KNOW WHAT AN IDU IS...??? NEED TO CONFIRM EVERYTHING!) In 1985, The Washington Post ran a three-part series (January 6-8) on China's brutal policy. Michael Weisskopf reported, "Any mother who becomes pregnant again without receiving official authorization after having one child is required to have an abortion, and the incidence of such operations is stunning — 53 million from 1979 to 1984, according to the Ministry of Public Health — a five-year abortion count approximately equal to the population of France." Family planning workers prefer to avoid pregnancy, and they have pushed sterilization. According to Weisskopf, "local officials use methods ranging from cash rewards to coercion to get those eligible to the operating table." And these methods produced results. "Official statistics show a high level of success: 31 million women and 9.3 million men were sterilized between 1979 and 1984, totaling almost one third of all married, productive couples in China." The policy was not based on "choice." The Washington Post reported: A roundup in frigid northern China near the Mongolian border illustrates how the process works. The campaign, which was described by a participating doctor, began in November 1983, when officials from every commune in the county searched their records for women under the age of 45 who had two or more children. Then they broadcast their names over public loudspeakers and set dates by which each had to report to the clinic for surgery. There was a warning to potential evaders: a loss of half of their state land allotment, a fine of $200 — equal to about a year's income — and a late fee of $10 for every day they failed to report. Several couples initially defied the warning but were quickly brought into line. Officials went to their homes, confiscated valuables, such as sewing machines and building materials, and threatened to sell them within three days unless they submitted to the operation. The surgical team left in early January after completing its goal of 16,000 sterilizations in two months, according to the doctor. Despite the reports in the Washington Post, and similar stories in the New York Times and other respected media, the Chinese government and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) have continued to deny that there is coercion in their program. Steven Mosher worked in southern China when he was a graduate student at Stanford University. He broke the story of forced abortion and coercive population policies. The Chinese government was outraged and demanded that Stanford punish him. Stanford found reason to throw Mosher out of their doctoral program. The savage program did not come to an end in the 1980s. In 1998, Rep. Christopher Smith, Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, held Congressional hearings on forced abortion and sterilization in China. One of the witnesses at the hearing was Gao Xiao Duan, who had been the administrator of a planned birth office in Fujian Province in China just two months before. Mrs. Gao worked in an office with a sign over the entrance: "No permit, no marriage; no permit, no pregnancy; no permit, no baby." She had a box where informers could drop reports about their neighbors who were pregnant without authorization. The building had a detention facility to hold violators. Mrs. Gao's testimony was detailed and powerful, with stories like the following: I vividly remember one time that I led my subordinates to Yinglin Town Hospital to check on births. I found that two women in Zhoukeng Town had extra-plan births. I led a planned-birth supervision team composed of a dozen cadres [trained personnel] and public security agents. With sledge hammers and heavy crowbars in hand, we went to Zhoukeng Town and dismantled their houses. We were unable to apprehend the women in the case so we took their mothers in lieu of them and detained them in the planned birth offices detention facility. It wasn't until about a half a month later that the women surrendered themselves to the planned birth office. They were sterilized, fined heavily, and their mothers were finally released. I myself did so many brutal things, but I thought that I was conscientiously implementing the policy of our party and that I was an exemplary citizen and a good cadre. Once I found a woman who was nine months pregnant, but did not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an induced abortion. In the operating room, I saw the child's lips were moving and how its arms and legs were also moving. The doctor injected poison into its skull and the child died and it was thrown into the trash can. Afterwards the husband was holding his wife and crying loudly and saying, "What kind of man am I? What kind of husband am I? I can't even protect my wife and child. Do you have any sort of humanity?" Whenever I saw these things, my heart would break, and I felt like to help the tyrant do evils was not what I wanted. I could not bear seeing all these mothers grief-stricken by induced delivery and sterilization. I could not live with this on my conscience because I too am also a mother. These cruel actions are against what I believe in. All of those 14 years I was a monster in the daytime, injuring others by the Chinese Communist authorities' barbaric planned birth policy. But in the evening I was like all other women and mothers, enjoying my life with my children. I couldn't go on living with such a dual life anymore. Here to all those injured women and to all those children who were killed, I want to repent and say sincerely that I'm very sorry, sincerely sorry. I want to be a real human being. Just a few months before the Congressional hearings, the UNFPA announced its cooperation in a four-year, $20 million family planning program in China, and stated that China wanted an approach "based on the principles of free and voluntary choice." Nafis Sadik, executive director of the UNFPA, told Rep. Chris Smith that the Chinese policy was "purely voluntary," and denied that there was any such thing as a license to have a birth. It is tempting to set aside the words of Nafis Sadik as flat lies. They may be, but to understand the debate over population control, it is important to know about a variety of subtle distinctions in the language. For example, when Mrs. Gao led a team to Zhoukeng town, where they smashed two houses and arrested the mothers of the pregnant women, was that coercion? The women eventually came to the birth center on their own feet; they were not dragged in by the police. They could have chosen to leave their mothers in jail while they gave birth to their own children. Most people would consider smashing your house or jailing your mom to be coercive. But to some people, coercion means using physical force on another person's body. There are other tools and terms used in population control debates. One of the most important tools for national policy-makers is setting targets for the whole program and quotas for their subordinates. Quotas set at the national level can lead directly to coercion at the local level. At the national level, the government can establish a target of reducing births to an average of three per family within the next five years. To achieve that target, they might tell regional or local family planning workers that they will be expected to meet a quota of so many IUDs inserted and so many people sterilized. If the quotas are too ambitious, the local workers might decide that they must use coercion — but the national program does not say anything about force. In such a program, everyone involved in the work can be fully aware that the program is coercive, but spokesmen at the national level can deny it with a straight face, or dismiss documented reports of coercion as occasional abuses at the local level. Sometimes population planners make a distinction between incentives and disincentives. An incentive is a reward for cooperating, a "carrot." In some nations, poor women are paid cash or given gifts if they get sterilized; such payments (or bribes) are incentives. A disincentive is some kind of punishment for failing to cooperate, a "stick." Fines, loss of work or promotion, and loss of farmland are examples of coercion. (These won't work in America, unless we go drastically in another direction--towards Communism.) In the debate over population policy, some funders argue for an approach based on voluntarism, and insist that they will not support a program that has any coercion, quotas or disincentives, but will tolerate incentives. (This is exactly what i think should be incorporated in America--and other places--in order to be fair, if and when the time comes that we have to.) It is possible to blur the difference between incentives and disincentives, though? In one Chinese village, the government installed water heaters at the town well. People who cooperated with the family planning program were rewarded with access to hot water for washing. That sounds like an incentive. But suppose most of the town cooperates? Then it might be more accurate to say that the few holdouts are being punished, losing access to hot water. That would be a disincentive. (First, did they have water to begin with??? Also, I think that all that needs to be done in America--maybe not ALL--is to mess with the tax brackets and people's financial security.... Which may seem like disincentive, but we're used to that in America. Like, some of us were upset about the $1.00 smoking tax, for like, the first day and then we just dealt with it. But it may seem like we're losing our "American" freedom to do whatever we want. Needs to be voted on and it needs to be brought up sooner than later so people get used to the idea if it needs to be implemented.) A substantial amount of population control work is accomplished through simple manipulation. Recall the words of Alva Myrdal, the Swedish population expert, who said that her government planned to address the problem of defectives reproducing themselves by encouraging "severe family limitation," reaching them "through direct propaganda and instruction in contraceptive methods." In 1999, the UNFPA announced its support for a family planning program in 32 counties in China (out of about 2,000). In those counties, the one-child-only population policy will be suspended. Or will it be? Nafis Sadik, as Executive Director of the UNFPA, said, "In the project counties, couples will be allowed to have as many children as they want, whenever they want, without requiring birth permits or being subject to quotas." However, the Chinese government may still use economic pressure to encourage compliance. In Sadik's words, couples in these counties "may still be subject to a 'social compensation fee' if they decide to have more children that recommended by the policy." The Golden Venture incident In June, 1993, the ship Golden Venture ran aground near New York harbor. It was carrying 300 passengers who had paid high prices to smugglers to help them flee the onechild-only family policy in China. Several passengers died trying to swim to shore; the others made it, but were arrested as illegal immigrants. They applied for political asylum. The United States will grant asylum to refugees who can show that they have a well-grounded fear of persecution if they are sent home. Immigration judges had to decide whether a well-grounded fear of forced sterilization or abortion was sufficient reason for granting asylum. The government held the Chinese refugees in federal prisons during the hearings and appeals. The matter dragged on for four years. The Clinton administration was determined not to offend the Chinese government, and tried to send most of the refugees back to China. Some of the refugees were sent back, and went to re-education camps. Some did finally receive asylum in the U.S. Others sought and received asylum in other nations. In the end, the message to Chinese refugees was clear. If you flee to the United States, you will suffer for it. In 1997, a young Chinese woman named Li Xuemei became pregnant without authorization. She had already given birth to one child, and had been fined for that. She had become pregnant a second time, and been forced to undergo an abortion. This was her third pregnancy, and she knew that she faced severe punishment. In early 1998, she fled from China. She went to a gang of "Snakeheads," and paid them to smuggle her out. The Snakeheads got her out of China, and landed her in Japan with a large group of other refugees. Japanese authorities learned about the illegal entry, and arrested them almost immediately. Li Xuemei was the only one in the group who managed to stay in Japan; the rest were deported quickly. But Li asked for asylum, saying that if the Japanese sent her back, she would be forced to abort her child. The Japanese courts debated her case for months, and her child was born while she was in jail. Eventually she was released from jail, but not granted asylum. The Japanese, like the Americans, were not eager to offend the Chinese. Nor did they want to encourage a mass exodus. The Japanese do not have anything like America's tradition of welcoming refugees. Further, Chinese refugees who intend to reach the United States have to cross the largest ocean in the world, but the distance to Japan is much shorter. Still, at least one judge admitted his admiration for Li Xuemei, who suffered so much to keep her child alive. The case may have been resolved quietly when she dropped out of sight. Ambivalence in the United States Since 1985, the American public has been aware that forced abortion occurs in China. During those years, there has been a fierce national fight about abortion. The people in the abortion battle describe themselves as "pro-life" and "pro-choice," so the Chinese policy should be extremely offensive to the activists on both sides of the abortion issue. Forced abortion is an assault on life and is also an assault on freedom. It would seem obvious for all Americans to denounce the practice. In fact, few of the people who identify themselves as "pro-choice" have spoken out. And when the Chinese government decided that they wanted to host the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, women's rights groups cooperated. Twenty percent of the women in the world (that is, Chinese women) live under a government that considers pregnancy to be the government's business, that is prepared to monitor menstrual periods, that brutalizes women regularly, that has no respect at all for privacy or choice or women's rights. (With that, i thought of our HIPPA laws that are in effect right now... So many things would have to change. I kind of think that it would be better if the American Gov't would stop lieing to us about spying on our personal lives and comprimising our privacy--in the name of "terrorism"--and just "spy" on us out in the open... why not??? Need to explore "why not"....) The Chinese population campaign is bloody and oppressive. To permit Beijing to host an international conference on women is like permitting Germany to host a summit meeting on antisemitism in 1939. And yet, women's groups went along with it. Hillary Clinton went to the Beijing meeting, and in her speech she did refer obliquely to forced abortion. But her words were muted, and did not mention China explicitly. Still, the U.S. State Department was quick to say that even her muted words were her own, and should not be understood as an official criticism of the Chinese from the American government. (Need to explore why no one wants to piss off China...??? I hate politics though!!!) When Jimmy Carter was President of the United States, he made human rights a part of American foreign policy. In our dealings with other nations, we would look at their record on human rights. In official meetings with diplomats or heads of state from other nations where there were serious abuses, Americans would make sure that one of the topics they discussed was human rights. American relations with the Communist government of China were not smooth. For years, American diplomats met with the Chinese to talk about trade and similar issues, and raised a list of complaints, including concern about genocide in Tibet, abuse of prison labor, the export of nuclear technology, the export of weapons — and forced abortion. But under Clinton, Americans stopped raising the forced abortion issue, except for occasional pro forma complaints. (Need to cross-check dates on Presidencies in relation to when America got "Chineseized". Because in response to the remark I made above... ALL OUR SHIT IS MADE IN CHINA!!! DUH!!) Since the early 1980s, there has been a great deal of support and praise for the Chinese population policy at the United Nations. Under Clinton, the American government has not made any serious effort to signal to the Chinese that our view of the one-child-only policy is different from the UNFPA view. Support for the Chinese population policy may be widespread. Good polling data is not available, but there were some informal surveys of several hundred people in Wisconsin and Maryland in the early 1990s. The surveys asked a random cross-section of people, "Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE China's population policy, which includes forced abortion?" Over 20 percent of respondents said they supported the Chinese policy. (That is sick...I HOPE that's not true. Here in frickin USA? That's a frickin joke, that 20% needs to be exported to frickin CHINA!!!!)

NSSM 200: Fear of Non-White Babies (I don't really care about this, but I'll read it anyway just in case.)
In 1975, the United States decided that protecting the nation required that we decrease population growth around the world. The government defined population growth in developing nations as a threat to our national security. The official policy was not put in the terms used by Lothrop Stoddard, who had written at the beginning of the century about the "rising tide of color against white world supremacy." But the new policy was designed to protect the power of the people in land Stoddard had called "White Man's Land" against encroachments from Black Man's Land, Brown Man's Land and Yellow Man's Land. UN conferences on population
Few topics, if any, have received as much attention at the United Nations as population. Since its founding, the UN has shown remarkable tenacity, organizing one conference per decade on population. The extraordinary series began in Rome (1954), the continued through Belgrade (1965), Bucharest (1974), Mexico (1984), and Cairo (1994). The Cairo conference was about "population and development," continuing a long debate. The Catholic Church had forced population control advocates to weigh development issues. Pope Paul VI insisted that "development is the new name for peace," (That's bullsh** for sure... nothing but problems.) and that international development would address the problems that worried the depopulationists. Shortly after Pope Paul VI issued a formal letter (or encyclical) entitled On the Development of Peoples laying out his approach, the Population Council started a scholarly journal called Population and Development. The fight was on: does population growth help or hinder development, or is it neutral? In the 1990s, the UN also sponsored international conferences on population and the environment (Rio de Janeiro), population and women (Beijing), and population and housing (Copenhagen). Population controllers were determined to establish themselves as the leaders in the environmental movement and the feminist movement, and were also ready to start a new battle over housing policies. The recycled racism appears in a collection of official documents, including National Security Study Memorandum 200, or NSSM 200. The "study" memo led in 1975 to a "decision" memo, National Security Decision Memorandum 314, or NSDM 314. The purpose of national security studies like this was to make clear for everyone involved, including American diplomats overseas, what the national government thought about issues and more specifically about possible threats. In 1975, the government saw various threats to American safety, or national security. Some threats were obvious; the government was concerned about maintaining military power in the Pacific, countering the threat of Communism in Europe, containing Communist rebels in Latin America. While it did not say so explicitly, NSSM 200 put non-white babies on the list of threats. The Memorandum called for increased funds for international population control programs, and also noted that funds from other programs could be used to study ways to reduce fertility. After the document was declassified in 1989, the Information Project for Africa distributed it to journalists all over the world. Many people found the document extremely offensive, and used NSSM 200 to challenge the United States at the UN population conferences.

Review of Chapter 15: Population Control Today 1. Describe the one-child-only family policy in China. 2. Explain the following terms: coercion, quota, manipulation, disincentives, incentives. 3. Is the United States government clearly opposed to China's population policy? Are the American people unanimously opposed to the policy? 4. What is NSSM 200, and what does it say about population? 5. Summarize the Golden Venture incident briefly. Identify Li Xuemei, and explain the significance of her flight from China. Discuss: What is the link between population policy in China and immigration policy elsewhere? (These are some good things to be thinking about:>])

Zero Growth; A population activist argues that birth control is the solution to the Earth's woes.

If population activist Robert Engelman is to be believed, when it comes to children, women are like cats before a food bowl. That is to say, women are modest in appetite, naturally self-regulating, not gluttons or gorgers. Given the choice and the means -- and desiring the best for our offspring -- we will usually bear few children rather than many. "Leave to women, more than to anyone else, the decision about when and how often to bear children," he argues in More, and the problem of world overpopulation will go away.


Is there a problem of world overpopulation? You might be forgiven for wondering. Overpopulation is -- Engelman acknowledges -- a back-burner issue, the kind of dystopian social ill that has been eclipsed by more pressing threats. "If they think about population growth at all, most policy makers tend to see it as a twentieth century worry that never matched its crisis billing," he notes. One reason may be that "population control" often carries an uncomfortable association with eugenics and the tamping down of ethnic populations; another is that the population crisis now feels confusingly dualized. (This article is kind of bias I think--"curing" overpopulation is not about ridding the world of a certain race, i don't think...it's about ridding the world of an unfortunate future FOR ALL OF US!! If we can't do something NOW because it might hurt someone's feelings, that's a shame.) In less developed countries, overpopulation does exacerbate problems like poverty and environmental degradation, but in some modernized countries, such as Japan, fertility rates are dropping to the point where population is actually shrinking. Moreover, he allows, it's always been a little hard to know how to think about population increase: The Malthusian view holds that overpopulation will usually lead to a self-correcting crisis involving, say, pestilence or famine, while the sunnier view is that more people lead to more creativity and progress. (This goes back to how having less people, yet quality people makes more sense to me and to a lot of people... also it seems cheaper to do it that way, since school is forced on people nowadays. And America NEEDS to focus on being cheaper too. So it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.) It sort of depends on whether you prefer Montana or Manhattan.


Either way, the fact is that the world's population is growing -- 78 million people are added to the world's roughly 6.7 billion each year -- and this affects the planet more than we admit, contributing to deforestation, ethnic conflict and global warming. (This part, especially about ethnic conflict, could be lessened if we have more "quality" people.. more time to understand each other and not have to understand as many people.) More Malthusian than not, Engelman's examination of the issue is useful and illuminating, though his solution -- contraception that is easily available and socially sanctioned -- seems a little facile.
In the most provocative part of More, Engelman traces the astonishing success of our species back to the moment, lost in time, when human mothers became able to reliably produce not just two surviving children, but three. Engelman argues that primitive midwifery -- truly the "oldest profession" -- pushed our species past the tipping point. When enough women were able to have three children, growth -- and, in Engelman's account, many of the signal developments of human history -- resulted. "The consistent survival of third children pushed populations beyond what local animal prey and food plants could support," he writes, and led to early human migration. Population growth led to the development of agriculture (rather than vice verse); intensive farming and the gathering of humans in one place led, with mixed results, to complex systems of government. (I think that that is a really good point, but implementing it my paper might prove challenging. Might have a use for it though... how we've stopped living off the land and started taking over natures job of "planting", and then over-harvesting.)


In tracing this history of humanity, he argues that the growth of big government and organized religion is not always good for women. Often, he says, large families have been inflicted on women by authorities with a vested interest in procreation. He provides a history of informal birth control -- pessaries, herbs -- as evidence that women have always secretly endeavored to limit childbearing, and argues that when midwives and other informal healers were driven out by organized medicine (or burned as witches), birth control became scarce. In this view of world history, population growth fueled religion and government, which then denied women reproductive control, inevitably fueling more growth.
(These are all really good points, but they go in a totally different direction!! And unfortunately so, because it is very interesting and very true... not much conflict there, I wouldn't think.)


But Engelman's account gives the impression that women have always been more interested in preventing children than in having them. Surely, throughout history there have always been women wanting fewer children, but there have also been women praying to have even one. While human history may have seen lots of informal contraceptives, it also saw lots of fertility totems. Moreover, this argument -- give women birth control, and women will take care of any population crisis -- strangely ignores the role of men, who don't always want eight children, either. Give women birth control and their husbands and partners might insist that they use it.
And herein lies an unresolved issue of the book: It may be true, as Engelman argues, that women in poor countries welcome greater access to birth control and recognize the value in having a smaller brood. It may even be true that women, possessing some kind of ancient wisdom and sense of measure, by and large prefer not to bear litters. But it seems to me that "what women want" is really pretty variable depending on time and place. The idea that there are all these men who want women to bear all these children seems -- at least to any working woman -- laughable. Once women become valuable to the workplace, authorities' view of childbearing changes. These days, for sure, having fewer kids is not always the woman's choice.
It's certainly worth pointing out that women, in general, are better off when they don't have to bear 11 children. And by all means, yes, give women everywhere access to birth control. But to me, the best argument for reproductive choice and readily available contraception has to do with women's lives and women's health, and the well-being of children and families. We can leave the fate of the Earth out of it.

Overpopulation: A Solution

The Survival of the Human Species





Humankind Is Heading Straight for the Wall!





"If all humankind produced, consumed and polluted as much as we do in the developed countries, we would need the equivalent of the resources of four additional planets."1





It's an illusion to think that we in the West are going to reduce our standard of living and our consumption much unless we are forced to - something nearly impossible in foreign countries.





But neither can we blame governments of less-developed countries for wanting to raise the standard of living of their citizens. So there are already far too many people on this planet (6.7 billion) for all citizens of the Earth to enjoy a Western standard of living. This flood of consumers is the ultimate reason behind the depletion of natural resources, and the situation will be far worse by 2050, when the world population reaches 9.2 billion according to the latest UN predictions.2 It is time to face the facts: humankind is heading straight for the wall if more decisive action is not taken immediately. ("Heading straight for the wall" seems kind of harsh to me. I think if we don't do something about it, and 2050 rolls around, we WILL be forced out of our comfortable American lifestyle--and not by the gov't.) To allow the people of the world to enjoy a decent living3without exhausting natural resources and causing drastic climate change, demographic trends must be reversed and a balance achieved between population and resources.



A number of countries are already aware that their population growth rate is too high and some, (the best known example is China) have taken measures to decrease births. The 2007 report of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs4 names countries making efforts in this direction (See the summary of this report in the Appendix). This report also shows that such efforts are far from being shared equally by all less developed countries and that many developed countries are moving in the opposite direction by adopting policies that encourage large families. In 2006, UN forecasts2 were revised downwards: the world growth rate is expected to decrease from 1.17% in 2005 to 0.36% in 2050, but the total population will still increase to 9.2 billion by 2050. (So other places I have read the same thing--that our population is slowing down--but in those articles they add to that that nothing is wrong. What this article says, is that even though it "slows down" (slightly), we are still going to have a catastrophe on our hands.)


However, present efforts to decrease population are not focused or expeditious enough to avoid predictable catastrophes: natural disasters due to climate distress, resource depletion, wars over fresh water, flows of illegal refugees, etc., etc. So it is urgent to take action now accelerate our efforts to reverse the demographic trend. It is with this in mind that we propose the following:OBJECTIVE: 4 Billion in 2100And these 4 billion must enjoy at least a decent standard of living.3 This objective can be reached by establishing a Restricted Family Policy (0 to 2 children) in all countries with high population densities. This would lead to a fertility rate5 of less than 2.1, the threshold required for population replacement. (I don't know if it's just me, but this statement kind of struck me as Socialist...not that I care, but there is going to have to be someone(s) in charge and those in charge always get power hungry... I don't care who they are!! That just wouldn't work unless something like "Equilibrium" was implemented... that's a little far fetched, even to me.)





Could we not take advantage of China's experience over the past 30 years? China's single child policy has very bad press abroad because of the many cases of coercion, such as forced abortion.6 All the missteps and coercion seen in the implementation of the Chinese policy must be avoided in the Restricted Family Policy, since they contravene human rights. On the other hand, the rules were eased somewhat in the Chinese law promulgated in 2002. China has also instituted many rewards and privileges for single child parents: for example, monthly allowances for parents of a single child until age 18 and a lump sum at age 55.7 Such incentives deserve consideration.



The policy adopted in China has resulted in the "avoidance" of some 400 million births and the fertility rate has fallen from 5.44 in 1971 to 1.8 in 2005.6 A Restricted Family Policy might not attain such spectacular results, but it must involve incentives and not be coercive. (That's for sure, because forced abortion is one major sin!! That's disgusting and despicable! Incentives are much more American and i really believe that people should be allowed to have as many children as they want, but with consequences... just like the smoking tax recently.)



(Before I go on reading, I'd like to take note of something... I could compare strategies to inform people on... how they differ, pros/cons. Because after reading some of this article, it really strikes me as Socialist and that's not cool for some, and i think that some plans are less socialist than others and I really want, after the paper is written, for people to be knowledgable enough to make a decision that is best for them...not EVERYONE. I want them to be able to debate someone on the topic!!)



Immediate Goal of the Restricted Family Policy (0 to 2 children)



The aim of the Restricted Family Policy is to reduce the fertility rate as quickly as possible to 1.5 in all countries with more than 10 million inhabitants, while raising the standard of living of citizens of less developed countries. Why do we set the target rate at 1.5? Because: 1- It is urgent that we decrease the number of consumers so that it does not reach nine billion by 2050, if we are to avoid resource depletion and intolerable environmental deterioration. The new method of calculating the ecological footprint, "Footprint 2.0 shows humanity overshot sustainable biocapacity levels by about 8 global hectares per capita. Overshoot of renewable biocapacity suggests a draw down in natural capital to fill the gap. In the ensuing years, this means that there could be less natural capital (to provide renewable biocapacity services) for more people without changes in policy, markets, consumption patterns, and technology....Ecological overshoot began in the late 1970s. Thereafter, overshoot has increased to about 18% with Ecological Footprint 1.0 and 39% with Ecological Footprint 2.0". 8 Further, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "World greenhouse gas emissions attributable to human activities have grown since the preindustrial era. Between 1970 and 2004, the increase was 70%."9 See other IPCC considerations in Note 9.2- Developed countries must also share in the efforts since they are the biggest consumers and polluters and also since, throughout his/her life, a child born in a developed country will consume and pollute much more than a child born in an undeveloped country. 3 - As we will see below, policies in a number of developed countries to encourage large families must be eliminated and increased immigration quotas encouraged, as they do not lead to increased world population. Here are some recent data (2006) on fertility rates and total population:





Much therefore remains to be done to decrease the fertility rate to 1.5. Once the balance between population and resources has been reached, the fertility rate can be allowed to increase to 2.1 to ensure population replacement.What is the Restricted Family Policy?The Restricted Family Policy consists in offering bonuses or privileges to those who freely agree to have only 0, 1 or 2 children. (That's better than ONLY 1.)





In Phase 1 of implementing the policy, all couples must be adequately informed about family planning, (I think that should be done anyway... and not only "couples".)and all men and women on earth of child-bearing age provided with free means of contraception: oral contraceptives, IUDs, condoms, voluntary vasectomies and tubal ligations,etc.



As privileges, we could, for example, offer free education up to doctoral level for one child, but only up to the secondary level for the second child, and/or offer free health care and medication for the entire restricted family. Daycare would be free for one child only. Government-subsidized daycare should be maintained, because women who work outside the home generally want fewer children. Many other examples of privileges could be associated with the Restricted Family Policy.In the present context, all present policies encouraging large families should be revised: after a transition period, the monthly family allowance would become much higher for the first child. There would still be an allowance for the second child, but it would be reduced to half the amount for the first child. These monthly allowances would continue until each child reaches 18.If we wish to reduce the fertility rate sufficiently (to 1.5), it is preferable for a family to have only one child or none, so all privileges associated with the first two children would be granted in a ratio of 2/3: 1/3 in favor of the first child.



Couples would still be free to have more children, but on the birth of a third, they would not receive any allowance, but would automatically lose all privileges associated with the first two children. This must be strictly enforced, because the implementation of the Restricted Family Policy would otherwise be totally ineffective and money spent on it would be completely wasted. Since the unexpected arrival of a third pregnancy could constitute an economic disaster for certain women or certain couples, all countries applying the Restricted Family Policy should pass legislation authorizing abortion on request while prohibiting sex-selective abortion. (Although i will probably mention it, i don't think abortion has anything to do with this AT ALL!!!!! Abortion shouldn't even be considered as an option... it's wrong and if someone makes a mistake, they need to live with it and learn from it!!!!) At the present time (see Appendix), only 15% of less developed countries and 69% of more developed countries have such laws. (Need to find this elsewhere, but very good info to have.)



Some exceptions to the rules mentioned above could be allowed for aboriginal peoples so that implementation of the Restricted Family Policy does not lead to their extinction; the privileges granted for the first two children would not be lost on the birth of a third for example.



It is also important to find ways to reward all men and women who do not have a decent standard of living3 for not having any children, whether they happen to be heterosexual or homosexual, fertile or sterile. During their working lives (roughly between the ages of 20 and 60), they would receive a monthly allowance to allow them to maintain a decent standard of living. The amount of these allowances would vary to take their personal incomes into account : those who already have a decent standard of living would not be entitled to such allowances.When people who have had no children retire, we could also pay them monthly retirement allowances to supplement their personal retirement incomes for the rest of their lives in order to allow them to maintain a decent standard of living, say an amount X. Monthly retirement allowances could also be paid to people who have had one child, but they would be reduced to X/2, and to X/4 for those who have had two children. This is to take into account the fact that their child(ren) would be able to help them provide for their needs. (That's what I was looking for... How does the gov't expect people to take care of themselves, unless a system/service is set up and not f***ed up like services to Vets and homeless people are today.... that's what's scary about taking that road--the gov't never lives up to their promises! Family is much more reliable in my eyes.)



Funding the Restricted Family Policy

The costs of all these bonuses and privileges would be defrayed by the rich countries on the basis of their GDP (very few rich countries now meet the international aid target of 0.7% of GDP). We would ask all rich countries to actually donate the pledged 0.7% of their GDP, and make the additional payments when the Restricted Family Policy is implemented in less developed countries. For this, all countries could use the savings achieved by reversing their present policies of encouraging large families. Private foundations would also be welcome to help finance the Restricted Family Policy. Similarly, sovereign investment funds could dedicate 10% of their annual profits, either in their own country, or to international assistance. Most countries could easily reduce their military expenditures by 10% and allocate the difference to implementing the policy. We could also question and reassign the costs of certain very expensive and not immediately urgent programs. Is it wise, for example, to devote billions of dollars to exploring pebbles on Mars while our own home, the planet Earth, is on fire?
Finally, with families restricted to a maximum of four, the social costs (education, health, etc.) associated with each family would be considerably reduced and could be reassigned. Savings could also be achieved by better targeting and improved monitoring of international assistance.


Before introducing the Restricted Family Policy, the amount of money required within each country and the amount that rich countries should provide in the form of international assistance must be accurately calculated.

International Restricted Family Treaty

The policy should be implemented in every country, except those with fertility rates less than 1.5 and those with populations under 10 million. (Awesome point to KEEP IN MIND; why punish others when they not part of the problem...then again, I want to keep my focus mainly on America and it's needs.) These will have little impact on world population in absolute terms and would regulate themselves in order to avoid exceeding this limit and becoming subject to the treaty. They would certainly be welcomed if they had fertility rates greater than 1.5 and wished to join the treaty to take advantage of the international assistance provided.
Under the aegis of the United Nations, a treaty similar to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be signed by all countries with more than 10 million inhabitants and fertility rates greater than 1.5. According to these two criteria and our calculations on the basis of 2006 UN data,2 only 64 countries with a total population of 5.4 billion would have to sign the treaty.
An agency should be set up to implement and monitor the treaty, and report to the United Nations Security Council, since it is the only supranational agency with power to influence uncooperative countries. This agency would have a mandate to manage and distribute funds set aside for the introduction of the Restricted Family Policy on the basis of the needs and level of receptiveness and compliance of the countries signing the treaty. What is to be done if any of the 64 countries refuse to sign or fully implement the treaty? They would be refused all additional international assistance, except in case of famine, pandemic or natural disaster. Additional international assistance would be directed solely towards implementation of the Restricted Family Policy in less developed countries who have signed the treaty. We would also forbid nationals of countries who refuse to sign to emigrate to the rich countries or other countries who have signed. In this way, citizens of recalcitrant countries would be encouraged to pressure their own governments to ratify the treaty.
Implementing an international treaty will take years. In the meantime, some countries could adopt a Restricted Family Policy and, if necessary, increase their immigration as provided below.



Increased but Controlled Immigration

Cultural diversity is admittedly an asset for all of humankind. Receiving countries have a right and even a duty to protect their own cultural identity provided they agree that it can be gradually improved by the positive contribution of immigrants from other cultural communities. It is their responsibility to introduce measures to help new arrivals harmoniously integrate: for example, free classes to learn the official language and learn about the country's institutions and customs, as well as prompt recognition of qualifications earned abroad, etc.
There is more. We know today that all human beings share 99.99% of their genetic material with all other human beings, whatever their distinctive features or the colour of their skin. Racism, xenophobia and introverted assertion of one's identity based on ethnicity are completely out of place today. The "us" must be only linguistic and cultural in a given territory. Certain people worry about a "demographic crash" or "mass suicide" of the nation.10 This is an insular view of the nation as based on the "old stock" ethnic group. In one of his columns,11 Hubert Reeves encourages us to develop an identity as Earthmen : "Are we going to continue growing in compassion and stop tolerating for the most distant of our fellow Earthmen what we would not tolerate for our nearest and dearest? Because in the end, we have to identify as both Frenchmen and Earthmen, or Quebecois and Earthmen ..." A Global Forum was held in Brussels in July 2007 attended by 800 delegates from 156 member states of the United Nations. The Global Forum embraced "... a new approach to international migration that has placed development at the center of the debate and considers legal migration as an opportunity for countries of destination and origin, rather than as a threat..." There is a "...growing recognition by Governments of the need to manage international migration better, rather than limit it...In 2007, 19 per cent of countries wanted to lower immigration, down from 40 per cent in 1996." (Note 4, page 27)Immigration plays a crucial role in the implementation of the Restricted Family Policy. Developed countries who adopt the Restricted Family Policy will face an aging of their populations and a lack of young people to keep their economy functioning and pay for retirement benefits received by the elderly. They would therefore be forced to considerably increase their quotas on legal immigration. (That is a really interesting point that can be used to debate whether America should have a Population Policy or not... although if we ever get to the point where we implement one, a lot of things will have changed.) They could accept an even larger number of immigrants if new arrivals undertook to have no more than two children.
Receiving countries must also strengthen their systems to control the entry of illegal immigrants, bogus refugees, or frankly undesirable individuals (criminals, terrorists or those suspected of genocide). Canada is far from being model in this respect. Even when illegal immigrants are identified, they are allowed to enter under false pretences. Then they often go underground or it can take years to expel them because of a very lengthy and expensive appeal process. Meanwhile, the illegal immigrant has had time to produce several children and then pleads to be allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds. We must never forget that every illegal or undesirable immigrant is taking up the place of a bona fide immigrant.



As receiving countries would be more receptive than they are today, immigrants in general would quickly attain the decent standard of living that they could not hope for in their countries of origin. Millions of people from less developed countries are prepared to do anything to immigrate to more developed countries. With the Restricted Family Policy, doors would be opened wider to legal immigration and unverifiable flows of clandestine refugees would be avoided. We must also take the action required to prevent a massive "brain drain" in order to ensure that increased immigration does not unduly prejudice countries of origin. In this connection, countries of origin could institute emigration quotas for their most qualified professionals, particularly health professionals, and receiving countries could avoid excessive recruiting of foreign "brains" by not offering fantastic working conditions or paid moving expenses.



On the other hand, receiving countries should set a strict condition: a written undertaking by immigrants or refugees committing them to have no more than two children, on pain of automatic repatriation without appeal to their countries of origin. Furthermore, immigration under family reunification criteria would be limited to the spouse and two children. "Most countries of destination allow migration for family reunification under specific conditions. However, family reunification is not universally accepted as a right...In recent years, several European countries have sought to limit admissions of family members, including Denmark, France, Ireland and Italy. While family reunification ensures the integrity of the family unit, it is a form of migration that is open to potential abuse through sham marriages or adoption." (Note 4, page 29)
Finally, an immigrant or political refugee would undertake to respect (without necessarily adopting) the values, symbols and official language of the receiving country. A person who immigrates to Japan should expect to respect Japanese culture and her democratic values. Those who immigrate to Canada must respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, democratic values and secular institutions and not attempt to impose the dictates of their own religion within the civic space. Each receiving country of course would be free to impose other admission criteria, such as the common language, an occupational profile that meets labor needs, etc.In sum, developed countries could make up for the reduction in their "old stock" population through successful immigration by introducing proper integration mechanisms and promptly providing new arrivals with work commensurate with their qualifications.


Promotion of the Restricted Family Policy

Several associations already promote a reduction in national or world population growth. We will mention only the following: the Population Institute, Population Connection, Peopleandplanet.net, Sierra Club, the Green Umbrella, and the Population Coalition. At the international conference held in Cairo in 1994, the UN adopted a 20-year action program (ICPD Program of Action).12 This program covers many themes other than population growth. Its action program has had some, but not sufficient, effect on reducing growth in the world's population. The associations mentioned above are working in the right direction but generally limit themselves to attempting to stabilize world population through assistance for family planning.
In short, present efforts lack forcefulness and urgency. The Restricted Family Policy transcends them by attempting to reduce the fertility rate to 1.5 as quickly as possible in all countries with more than 10 million inhabitants and raise the standard of living of citizens of less developed countries.
The associations mentioned above could broaden their mandates in order to promote the Restricted Family Policy. Other associations could be created entirely for this purpose. Political parties could also add this plank to their electoral platforms. It is to be hoped that some effective charismatic or persuasive leaders will adopt the idea and publicize it as broadly as possible. Altruistic individuals seeking a cause could adopt this one, which is so vitally important for humankind and so enriching on a personal level. When the house is on fire, you save the children before the goldfish.



Production, Consumption and Pollution in Developed Countries

Citizens of developed countries should consume less and more wisely in order to avoid the rapid depletion of natural resources and to allow inhabitants of less developed countries to raise their standard of living. Thus, through technological innovation, they must dematerialize1 their economies (by using fewer raw materials per unit of production). Finally, they must pollute much less. Measures to save the environment have already been fully documented by many specialists and associations. All these measures may very well be introduced in parallel with the implementation of the Restricted Family Policy.

Religious Morality

Many religions still advocate large families.

The God of the Old Testament commanded us to "Be fruitful and multiply." This was a valid injunction until the 20th century. Age-old wisdom called for having many children to compensate for high infant mortality rates, provide cheap labor and ensure support in one's old age. Today, this precept no longer holds: human overpopulation is likely to soon lead to the extinction of the human species itself. It is far better to have fewer children who did not ask to be born than to give birth to human beings who will die of hunger or despair because they are unable to improve their miserable destinies. Religions must therefore revise their moral values to take into account the predictable future of the human species.
(Paraphrase:
When God told us to "Be fruitful and multiply" I'm sure meant that to be being of time, not now when populating at the rate humans are may eventually "lead to the extinction of the human" race. Giving birth to those that may better the country, or even the world by being properly educated and cared for is better than putting strain on a world that can barely support it's current inhabitants. Churches have always bent the word of God, so why not in this case? Their "moral values" need to be in a more current place and focused on the "future of the human species.")

Of course, nearly all religions are right to denounce materialism and overconsumption. The problem is that very few of their adherents take these aspects of their teachings seriously. This is why, by maintaining their anti-abortion stand and continuing to encourage large families, they are acting like shepherds irresponsibly leading their flocks towards the precipice.


The Impact of Reversing Demographic Trends


1- First and foremost is the possibility of ensuring the survival of the Earth's inhabitants. Next to the threat of total nuclear war, which has become less probable but is still possible, overpopulation (i.e. excess number of consumers) constitutes the greatest threat to human life on earth. 2- In most developed countries, increased immigration would lead to greater cultural diversity, which is certainly no disadvantage if we consider the great diversity of origins of the citizens of the US. 3- Immigration could largely offset the inversion of the age pyramid in developed countries. Japan is the first developed country to have to deal with this situation, with 21.7% of the population over 65.13 In 2050, there will be only 1.3 workers to pay for the retirement of every three elderly, so Japan is already beginning to encourage workers to delay retirement until 65 and encourage businesses to retain their employees until they reach 70. 4- In developed countries, a sustained reduction in consumption could entail negative growth in the economy lasting several years, i.e., a recession, or even a depression. Members of the middle class who are reduced to unemployment could find themselves relatively impoverished (they would buy fewer SUVs to drive around the city); but there is little likelihood of repeating the great hardship experienced in the 1930s, since all developed countries now have good social safety nets. Companies might continue to move consumer manufacturing to emerging countries and concentrate even more on the knowledge and service sectors. With decreasing natural resources, developed countries will sooner or later have to learn to live within their reduced GDP. Specialists should begin work on this problem as soon as possible in order to ensure a smooth transition, rather than waiting for a crisis provoked by a dizzying upsurge in the prices of natural resources. (I want to use this thinking in my paper and really try to get that across to Americans. It's important they understand that before lecturing them on how they can't have babies.) 5- Population would drop in most less-developed countries, which would relieve pressure on governments, who would have fewer mouths to feed and jobs to create. They could also take advantage of the relocation of factories from developed countries to create a local middle class. African countries could of course in this way imitate the actions of countries such as China, Vietnam, or Tunisia. 6- Less-developed countries would themselves also face an inversion of the age pyramid. However, as their standard of living rose, migration might also partially reverse itself, with some immigrants from receiving countries wishing to return to their countries of origin. In this connection, countries with negative migration would be well advised to grant dual nationality to their emigrants as France and Italy have already done. (More contradictory comments within the article...this is craziness!!) 7- Internationally, wealth would be much better distributed : thanks to the international assistance planned for the implementation of the Restricted Family Policy, less developed countries would see their citizens' standard of living improving appreciably and their increased consumption would permit growth in their economies to take off or accelerate.

Conclusion

One thing is certain: the human species on Earth will be extinct within five billion years, so a cynic might ask "Well then, why not in 300 years, after my great grand children are gone?" In other words: after us, the deluge. NO! Life is too beautiful an adventure for anyone who is enjoying a decent standard of living and who has found the recipe for happiness: to appreciate what we already have, not to envy those who have more, and to love. The policy recommended here is like a hymn to a decent lifestyle for the whole human population on this small boat that is our common Earth. It is also meant to be a way to work towards a more egalitarian and more interdependent world society. To succeed, we must ACT.

Overpopulation: The Unpopular Issue the U.S. Government Won't Address

It's the dirty little/big word that no political party or government (save for China) wants to address. Overpopulation! The root cause of our planet's social, economic and environmental ills. It extends from the greenhouse effect with its truly horrific effects upon the planet - including
the horrendous prospect that we could actually lose the Polar Ice-Caps, leading to worldwide flooding and rising temperatures - to the job shortage situation in America and pretty much everywhere else in the world. It's something that countries around the world can no longer ignore if they want to survive and flourish. Finding alternative means of energy, reducing pollution and recycling technology all helps, of course, but there is only one true way to save the environment, aka, the planet.So why is it that nobody wants to address it? It's a simple answer. Because of how unpopular it would make any political party or Government that did. Nobody's going to win an election by addressing it as a main issue. The only effective answer to Overpopulation is to limit how many children are born each year and of course people being what we are there is the tendency to get all up in arms when 'Big Brother' tells us how to live our lives. But it's now coming to the point in countries like Africa and India where limitations are going to have to be made and this will of course lead to infringements upon human rights which is, what's the word.......tough!. (Pretty sure I agree with the arugument that countries like the US and Canada need to limit themselves before Africa and India... The pollution and energy we use up in America is riduculous and I really believe we need to think about what we are doing and WANT to change it.) What choice do we have, the price to pay by future generations is just too great and if we aren't prepared to do anything about it there may not be a future worth living for our kids/grand-kids. China of course is already implementing social change with a one-child policy, which grants economic advantages to those who agree to it. Unfortunately many people still cling to the idea of having 2 kids which shows we have to change attitudes as well. (This is a point that needs to be made in the paper...that we as a nation need too change our attitudes towards what is considered the "norm". So we don't tell people to not have chilldren, but only to limit yourself because you want to in order to help the planet because if you don't your children you have now will have a horrible future.) So before we start reaching these militaristic doomsday scenarios let's start on a more rational plane with simpler less intrusive and common-sense solutions. Perhaps penalizing those who have more than say 2 children would be a start. Instead of rewarding people for having large families by throwing money at them how about rewarding those of us who don't have more than 2 children or better yet how about rewarding those who have no children at all. (These ideas are smart to me... you can have as many kids as you want, but those who limit themselves or have no children at all will be rewarded. It's a little more "American"... once again, that needs to be a focal point.)Financial incentives in the form of Tax breaks to those who aren't being a burden on society by adding to the population. In America things aren't quite so bad.........yet! but complacency is a dangerous thing. Limiting each family to 1 child sounds tough but with limitations on the environment it is going to have to be done eventually. People are hardly a precious commodity. I mean did you know that there's a rat for every person in New York City. Rather than being appalled by how many rats there are I'm appalled that there's a person for every rat. When the Tsunami that hit the Indian Ocean a couple of years ago killing up to 300,000 people, sad to say but it didn't exactly make a dent in the world population. Giving incentives to people not to have children should take the place of giving incentives to have them. There will doubtless come a time when America too will have to tell people how many children they can have and enforcement of any such law although being totally un-American will eventually happen if people are allowed to breed unchecked. I can envision the day when nothing short of a cull of sorts will be necessary to keep the human populace in check. 'How many kids do you have Mr. Thompson. Let me see, Three? Well that's just one too many. Say goodbye to Peter, Jr............Bang!' Of course this would be an unpleasant scenario but look at what's happening in China right now. We aren't too far from that scenario right now. Of course I'm sure the American Gov't would be more subtle. An invisible form of ethnic cleansing via race-specific biological warfare could be used to weed out those immigrants deemed undesirable. Enforced Vasectomies to anyone over 30. (That would not work...telling people that they have to do something to their bodies that they may not want to or is against their religion. Of course, then what do you do about Christians that are against birth control messures... guess they have to figure that out themselves, or they would just not be apart of the incentives--taxes should be raised more??) Perhaps Bacterial Warfare imitating the 'Black Death' of the 1600's might be developed. All unpleasant scenarios but all things I could quite easily imagine happening. If we continue to allow people to have as many children as they like then we are completely doomed. This isn't in question. It's a fact. We are talking not just about Human survival but the planet's survival. In the next 40 years or so we could effect great changes in how we monitor and determine our populace but only if our respective governments have the guts to face the truth of the situation.