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.