The Utopia Problem
Another essay from me.
This one was edited by Pris, to whom much thanks is owed for her helpful and detailed comments.
A political essay is forthcoming next, for those who are interested.
The Utopia Problem
What is It and Do We Really Want It?
Utopia. This single word brings to mind an array of images. For some, an idyllic, pastoral paradise inhabited wholly by the good-natured. To others, the words is an excuse, a rationale given to justify drastic means in the pursuit of something better. But neither of these definitions wholly encompasses the use of the word over the course of history and through moral philosophy. Utopia, in fact, does not mean a perfect society - it means, in its original meaning, “no place,” and, I would argue, is meant less than as a tangible goal and more as an abstract ideal. The acquisition of a physical utopia distracts the true purpose of utopianism, which is not to bring an end to history and progress, but to compel it.
Humanity's drive to improve itself has driven just about every aspect of society. It influences economics, regardless of whether the system is capitalistic or communist. It is force on which politicians build their promises and for which purpose they are given their power. By and large, most religions focus on the search for something better than what life readily provides, be it through the promise of a paradise in the life beyond this one or by providing a standard to live your life by. Our desire to exceed and surpass the status quo is one of the central defining components of the human experience.
However, our drive to improve ourselves is often weighed down by the ills of society itself, and this, or perhaps a sense of genuine philanthropy, motivates us to improve society. Throughout history, this drive has been taken to its logical conclusion, with utopianism, the hope for a society without sin or social ills. At its most basic, utopianism aims not merely to excel but to excel permanently, creating the perfect society where further struggle is unnecessary and humanity can live in a state of undisturbed bliss, where all the common sins that plague us are either entirely absent or significantly subdued. Scholarly consensus often holds the proposed state in The Republic by Plato to be the first clear example of a utopian vision in literature, 1 though the archetype would reemerge several times before the name Utopia was finally chosen by Thomas More in his 1516 book, Of the State of a Republic, and of the New Island Utopia. Other, more recent examples include the Federation in Star Trek or the titular nation in Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach.
However, as often as utopias are presented they are criticized, often harshly, as in the novel 1984 by George Orwell or Erewhon by Samuel Butler. The reasons for criticism vary, from accusations of setting unrealistic goals to claims that utopias are used as an unhealthy form of escapism. However, the criticism that has probably stuck most is that utopias, by their very nature, exhibit a degree of totalitarianism that functions on the basis that there is one, ultimately superior method by which humanity may excel and that other methods are, regardless of their intent, dangerous and, indeed, evil. As a consequence, the utopia has gradually faded out of popularity to be replaced with the dystopia, the worst-possible world, often used as a form of “anti-utopia.”
A few questions emerge from this conflict. First, are the accusations thrown against utopias valid? Then, regardless of if they are or are not, what are the central causes of these issues or non-issues? And lastly, how might we solve the problem of utopia presented by these arguments?
To answer the first question, it's important to look at the wide range of utopias presented and to clearly define what we mean by utopia. At its most basic, a utopia is a perfect society. However, what a “perfect” society is varies from person to person, depending largely upon one's political viewpoints or moral philosophy. To Plato, the utopia of The Republic was a government that might be gently described as authoritarian and homogenous or harshly as totalitarian and oppressive, a vision which does not hold a lot of appeal to modern readers (or, for that matter, given Athens' execution of Plato's teacher Socrates, likely few of the time as well). Similarly, Lenin's dream of an ideal society for Russia was, and remains to this day, a nightmare for Western capitalists and libertarians while others remain attracted to the concept.
Here, we are presented with the first issue for utopias: that any given utopia is either the ideal of a single individual or of a select group of individuals. Utopias rarely, if ever, represent the collective will of humanity as a whole. This is, in large part, because of the wide variety of political, economic, religious, and moral ideologies which pervade not only the world as a whole, but our own societies. If an American Republican and an American Democrat can rarely agree on how best a state should govern its people than how can one expect the entire world to come to a united consensus?
The answer, of course, is that you can't - or at least not on an ideal. So goes the proverbial phrase, “you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.” 2 Strong, stable governments are more often than not the result of compromise and lowering expectations, as in the case of the United States, which was formed out of the combative and opposing wishes of the Federalists, who desired a strong, sometimes dictatorial government, 3 and Anti-Federalists, who sought a much weaker state, occasionally to the point of anarchism. 4 Conversely, utopias, by their very nature, require that the proposed system be employed in full, otherwise it is not a utopia. Compromise is anathema to the traditional utopianist, because it means that their vision might not only be impractical - it might be wrong.
Contrasting strongly with the development of the American government is the French Revolution. Whereas excesses by either the Federalists or Anti-Federalists were held back by a willingness by both sides to compromise, 5 6 7 the opposite was true in Revolutionary France, where what started as a fairly (contrary to common belief) bloodless affair turned over a few short years into the so-called “Reign of Terror,” in which the radical Jacobins culled not only the monarchists they had originally opposed but also any other political faction that they felt lacked the proper revolutionary spirit. 8 Similar examples can be pulled up at will from across history, from the Russian Revolution, wherein the revolutionary government of 1917 was quickly supplanted by the Bolsheviks, 9 to the even more bloody Chinese Revolution, which lasted over half a century, from 1911 10 to 1976 11 (with intermittent periods of relative peace).
This extremism, this unwillingness to compromise, is one of the darker elements of utopian visions and gives a strong argument to its critics' claims that utopias inevitably lead to Orwellian dystopias. In a sense, the only real way to counter the need for compromise is to make everyone agree and too often, it would seem, the easiest way to do this is through deception and suppression of individual rights, tactics which are sometimes blatantly and explicitly encouraged, as in The Republic or even Utopia itself. This is often written off as the “ends justify the means,” which again evokes in the popular imagination today visions of fascism or totalitarian communism.
The central question then becomes, is this an inevitable factor of utopias? Again, this depends largely upon how you define utopia. If by utopia, we mean a clearly defined society built around a structure we can describe in detail, than, to some extent, the answer is yes, this is an inevitable quality of utopia. In order to create a perfect society by conscious choice, one must eliminate all of the opposing forces - many of which are opposing points of view. To do this on a small scale can be done peaceably, but inevitably results in downscaling to a point beyond which is sustainable unless the needs of those within the society are similarly curtailed (e.g., Amish communities, which form semi-isolated utopian communes for their inhabitants). On a large scale, say, that of a large city or even an entire nation-state, this curtailing of the undesirable must be done through more drastic means.
However, if we are to remove ourselves from the picture of utopia, erase specifics, and describe utopia instead as an objective, an unclear ideal to reach for, than no, because we are no longer precluding our desires as the basis for the utopia. Of course, we then must wonder, is this still a utopia if it is no longer our ideal but rather an abstract concept as loosely defined as freedom, faith, or love? Can a society that we are unable to define be described as a utopia? And can we reach for it without falling into the trap of totalitarianism?
I would argue yes, and here is why. As we've clearly delineated a utopia that actually represents a universal view of goodness is not only impossible, but is, in fact, a dangerous ideal. What we are left then with is only one possibility: an ideal society defined not by our wants, our desires, our needs, and our perspective, but by the collective will of all, as defined by the process of proposal, debate, and compromise. If we meld our optimism and idealism with the knowledge of our own fallibility, than it is certainly possible to reach for a better society.
I would, in fact argue, that we've been doing this for the entirety of human history. Consider a comparison of human society today with human society two millennia ago. How many of us would honestly wish to live the life of a Celtic peasant, a Roman slave, or even an emperor? Most obviously, there are, of course, material considerations to be taken into account. Many of us could not do without the material conveniences we take for granted such as artificial light, refrigerated food, running water, or, increasingly, the internet. We rely on these more than we know and while they are not necessary to survival, they undoubtedly make our lives more comfortable.
But this is ignoring even greater considerations. Consider the fact that, just a century ago, the average life expectancy of an American was 47. Advances in health care have catapulted this a full 60% more. 12 Additionally, infant mortality and death from childbirth have declined even more, with a sharp decline of 90% and 99%, respectively. 13 This has, of course, brought up another list of problems, such as worries of overpopulation. However, just as death rates have fallen, so have birth rates, due to the development of more effective birth control and the movement of our society from rural agricultural to urban industrialization. In 1900, for every 1000 women 26 gave birth. This halved by 2000, to such a point that the main cause of population growth in the United States was immigration. 14
It is easy to yearn for an easier, more pleasant time, but an examination of history shows this is anything but the case. With the exception of hunter-gatherers, human society has never been so equitable and prosperous in terms of benefits reaped for work spent. As our society's industries become more and more automated, we are left with longer periods of leisure time and a greater degree of personal freedom. Consider the past to be a golden age? Ask the Jew, the African-American, the Irishman, or the average woman how they'd like to go back one hundred years. For that matter, ask the lower-class White American, who is probably happy not to work ten hours a day with no overtime pay.
The point is, humanity has a trend towards self-improvement, whether on an individual or societal scale. Adaptation is what causes a species to thrive and we as a species have been very successful - arguably more so in terms of population growth than any other species in history. We have even reached to the point where it is not only theoretically possible, it is now well underway to being feasible to consider expanding our species off of the planet that birthed us. If that's not success, I challenge a better definition.
The only ones who believe that we do not improve as a species are those that argue for societal management on the scale necessary for most proposed utopias. It is their belief that humanity does not have an upward curve, a “bend towards justice” as Martin Luther King, Jr. would say, 15 that drives them to deny humans the capacity for self-choice, perhaps our most definitive characteristic. They would propose to deny human nature and replace humanity with a flock, willing to follow the infallible superman who knows best. But as history shows us, this ends more often in sorrow than in joy and, compared with the democratic processes of more successful governments, is not only morally offensive but politically offensive as well.
Let society grow then. Let it subconsciously move forward. Perhaps we will not reach perfection, but perhaps that isn't really desirable. After all, if we do not have to struggle in order to improve ourselves, what is the reward for excellence?
So, perhaps, the real answer is not to stop reaching for utopia, but to redefine what utopia is: not the perfect society, but not the status quo either, a society defined not by ourselves, but by all. And, if that's the best possible state a society can reach then, I ask, how is it not a utopia? After all, utopia is not what we would like society to be; it's society at its best.
1Simon, Caroline J. Introduction to Plato, the Republic, Hope College, http://www.hope.edu/academic/ids/171/Republic.html
2Possibly a misquote of Abraham Lincoln; replace “please” with “fool”
3The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Archiving Early America, http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/
4Afinogenov, Greg. Was Jefferson an Anarchist?, Slawkenbergius's Tales (May 8, 2007), http://slawkenbergius.blogspot.c om/2007/05/was-jefferson-anarchist.html
5Three-Fifth Compromise, Digital History, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=306
6Lloyd, Gordon. Introduction to the Massachusetts Ratification Convention, TeachingAmericanHistory.org http://teaching americanhistory.org/ratification//massachusetts.html
7Kelly, Martin. What is the Great Compromise?, About.com, http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/f/greatcompromise.htm
8Faria, Jr., Miguel A. “Part II: Maximilien Robespierre - The Incorruptible,” Bastille Day and the French Revolution, Hacienda Publishing, Inc. (July 21, 2004), http://www.haciendapub.com/lnc7.html
9Koeller, David W. The Bolshevik Revolution, World History Chronology (2003), http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/E astEurope/OctRev.html
10Trans. TK Chung. Woo, Philip. The Chinese Revolution of 1911, The Corner of the World (orig. 1980), http://www.thecorner.org/hist/china/chin-revo.htm
11Watkins, Thayer. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, 1966-1976, San Jose State University, http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cultrev.htm
12Stevenson, Karen. 1900-2000, Changes in Life Expectancy in the United States, ElderWeb (March 23, 2006) http://www. elderweb.com/home/node/2838
13Ten Great Public Health Achievements - United States, 1900-1999, CDC (April 2, 1999), http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/p review/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm
14Beck, Roy. IMMIGRATION: NO. 1 IN U.S. GROWTH: NEW LOOK SHOWS GREATER ROLE IN 1970-90 POPULATION INCREASE, DieOff.org (orig. The Social Contract, Winter 1991-1992), http://dieoff.org/page54.htm
15Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes, Woopidoo! quotations, http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/martin-luther-king/index.htm
This one was edited by Pris, to whom much thanks is owed for her helpful and detailed comments.
A political essay is forthcoming next, for those who are interested.
The Utopia Problem
What is It and Do We Really Want It?
Utopia. This single word brings to mind an array of images. For some, an idyllic, pastoral paradise inhabited wholly by the good-natured. To others, the words is an excuse, a rationale given to justify drastic means in the pursuit of something better. But neither of these definitions wholly encompasses the use of the word over the course of history and through moral philosophy. Utopia, in fact, does not mean a perfect society - it means, in its original meaning, “no place,” and, I would argue, is meant less than as a tangible goal and more as an abstract ideal. The acquisition of a physical utopia distracts the true purpose of utopianism, which is not to bring an end to history and progress, but to compel it.
Humanity's drive to improve itself has driven just about every aspect of society. It influences economics, regardless of whether the system is capitalistic or communist. It is force on which politicians build their promises and for which purpose they are given their power. By and large, most religions focus on the search for something better than what life readily provides, be it through the promise of a paradise in the life beyond this one or by providing a standard to live your life by. Our desire to exceed and surpass the status quo is one of the central defining components of the human experience.
However, our drive to improve ourselves is often weighed down by the ills of society itself, and this, or perhaps a sense of genuine philanthropy, motivates us to improve society. Throughout history, this drive has been taken to its logical conclusion, with utopianism, the hope for a society without sin or social ills. At its most basic, utopianism aims not merely to excel but to excel permanently, creating the perfect society where further struggle is unnecessary and humanity can live in a state of undisturbed bliss, where all the common sins that plague us are either entirely absent or significantly subdued. Scholarly consensus often holds the proposed state in The Republic by Plato to be the first clear example of a utopian vision in literature, 1 though the archetype would reemerge several times before the name Utopia was finally chosen by Thomas More in his 1516 book, Of the State of a Republic, and of the New Island Utopia. Other, more recent examples include the Federation in Star Trek or the titular nation in Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach.
However, as often as utopias are presented they are criticized, often harshly, as in the novel 1984 by George Orwell or Erewhon by Samuel Butler. The reasons for criticism vary, from accusations of setting unrealistic goals to claims that utopias are used as an unhealthy form of escapism. However, the criticism that has probably stuck most is that utopias, by their very nature, exhibit a degree of totalitarianism that functions on the basis that there is one, ultimately superior method by which humanity may excel and that other methods are, regardless of their intent, dangerous and, indeed, evil. As a consequence, the utopia has gradually faded out of popularity to be replaced with the dystopia, the worst-possible world, often used as a form of “anti-utopia.”
A few questions emerge from this conflict. First, are the accusations thrown against utopias valid? Then, regardless of if they are or are not, what are the central causes of these issues or non-issues? And lastly, how might we solve the problem of utopia presented by these arguments?
To answer the first question, it's important to look at the wide range of utopias presented and to clearly define what we mean by utopia. At its most basic, a utopia is a perfect society. However, what a “perfect” society is varies from person to person, depending largely upon one's political viewpoints or moral philosophy. To Plato, the utopia of The Republic was a government that might be gently described as authoritarian and homogenous or harshly as totalitarian and oppressive, a vision which does not hold a lot of appeal to modern readers (or, for that matter, given Athens' execution of Plato's teacher Socrates, likely few of the time as well). Similarly, Lenin's dream of an ideal society for Russia was, and remains to this day, a nightmare for Western capitalists and libertarians while others remain attracted to the concept.
Here, we are presented with the first issue for utopias: that any given utopia is either the ideal of a single individual or of a select group of individuals. Utopias rarely, if ever, represent the collective will of humanity as a whole. This is, in large part, because of the wide variety of political, economic, religious, and moral ideologies which pervade not only the world as a whole, but our own societies. If an American Republican and an American Democrat can rarely agree on how best a state should govern its people than how can one expect the entire world to come to a united consensus?
The answer, of course, is that you can't - or at least not on an ideal. So goes the proverbial phrase, “you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.” 2 Strong, stable governments are more often than not the result of compromise and lowering expectations, as in the case of the United States, which was formed out of the combative and opposing wishes of the Federalists, who desired a strong, sometimes dictatorial government, 3 and Anti-Federalists, who sought a much weaker state, occasionally to the point of anarchism. 4 Conversely, utopias, by their very nature, require that the proposed system be employed in full, otherwise it is not a utopia. Compromise is anathema to the traditional utopianist, because it means that their vision might not only be impractical - it might be wrong.
Contrasting strongly with the development of the American government is the French Revolution. Whereas excesses by either the Federalists or Anti-Federalists were held back by a willingness by both sides to compromise, 5 6 7 the opposite was true in Revolutionary France, where what started as a fairly (contrary to common belief) bloodless affair turned over a few short years into the so-called “Reign of Terror,” in which the radical Jacobins culled not only the monarchists they had originally opposed but also any other political faction that they felt lacked the proper revolutionary spirit. 8 Similar examples can be pulled up at will from across history, from the Russian Revolution, wherein the revolutionary government of 1917 was quickly supplanted by the Bolsheviks, 9 to the even more bloody Chinese Revolution, which lasted over half a century, from 1911 10 to 1976 11 (with intermittent periods of relative peace).
This extremism, this unwillingness to compromise, is one of the darker elements of utopian visions and gives a strong argument to its critics' claims that utopias inevitably lead to Orwellian dystopias. In a sense, the only real way to counter the need for compromise is to make everyone agree and too often, it would seem, the easiest way to do this is through deception and suppression of individual rights, tactics which are sometimes blatantly and explicitly encouraged, as in The Republic or even Utopia itself. This is often written off as the “ends justify the means,” which again evokes in the popular imagination today visions of fascism or totalitarian communism.
The central question then becomes, is this an inevitable factor of utopias? Again, this depends largely upon how you define utopia. If by utopia, we mean a clearly defined society built around a structure we can describe in detail, than, to some extent, the answer is yes, this is an inevitable quality of utopia. In order to create a perfect society by conscious choice, one must eliminate all of the opposing forces - many of which are opposing points of view. To do this on a small scale can be done peaceably, but inevitably results in downscaling to a point beyond which is sustainable unless the needs of those within the society are similarly curtailed (e.g., Amish communities, which form semi-isolated utopian communes for their inhabitants). On a large scale, say, that of a large city or even an entire nation-state, this curtailing of the undesirable must be done through more drastic means.
However, if we are to remove ourselves from the picture of utopia, erase specifics, and describe utopia instead as an objective, an unclear ideal to reach for, than no, because we are no longer precluding our desires as the basis for the utopia. Of course, we then must wonder, is this still a utopia if it is no longer our ideal but rather an abstract concept as loosely defined as freedom, faith, or love? Can a society that we are unable to define be described as a utopia? And can we reach for it without falling into the trap of totalitarianism?
I would argue yes, and here is why. As we've clearly delineated a utopia that actually represents a universal view of goodness is not only impossible, but is, in fact, a dangerous ideal. What we are left then with is only one possibility: an ideal society defined not by our wants, our desires, our needs, and our perspective, but by the collective will of all, as defined by the process of proposal, debate, and compromise. If we meld our optimism and idealism with the knowledge of our own fallibility, than it is certainly possible to reach for a better society.
I would, in fact argue, that we've been doing this for the entirety of human history. Consider a comparison of human society today with human society two millennia ago. How many of us would honestly wish to live the life of a Celtic peasant, a Roman slave, or even an emperor? Most obviously, there are, of course, material considerations to be taken into account. Many of us could not do without the material conveniences we take for granted such as artificial light, refrigerated food, running water, or, increasingly, the internet. We rely on these more than we know and while they are not necessary to survival, they undoubtedly make our lives more comfortable.
But this is ignoring even greater considerations. Consider the fact that, just a century ago, the average life expectancy of an American was 47. Advances in health care have catapulted this a full 60% more. 12 Additionally, infant mortality and death from childbirth have declined even more, with a sharp decline of 90% and 99%, respectively. 13 This has, of course, brought up another list of problems, such as worries of overpopulation. However, just as death rates have fallen, so have birth rates, due to the development of more effective birth control and the movement of our society from rural agricultural to urban industrialization. In 1900, for every 1000 women 26 gave birth. This halved by 2000, to such a point that the main cause of population growth in the United States was immigration. 14
It is easy to yearn for an easier, more pleasant time, but an examination of history shows this is anything but the case. With the exception of hunter-gatherers, human society has never been so equitable and prosperous in terms of benefits reaped for work spent. As our society's industries become more and more automated, we are left with longer periods of leisure time and a greater degree of personal freedom. Consider the past to be a golden age? Ask the Jew, the African-American, the Irishman, or the average woman how they'd like to go back one hundred years. For that matter, ask the lower-class White American, who is probably happy not to work ten hours a day with no overtime pay.
The point is, humanity has a trend towards self-improvement, whether on an individual or societal scale. Adaptation is what causes a species to thrive and we as a species have been very successful - arguably more so in terms of population growth than any other species in history. We have even reached to the point where it is not only theoretically possible, it is now well underway to being feasible to consider expanding our species off of the planet that birthed us. If that's not success, I challenge a better definition.
The only ones who believe that we do not improve as a species are those that argue for societal management on the scale necessary for most proposed utopias. It is their belief that humanity does not have an upward curve, a “bend towards justice” as Martin Luther King, Jr. would say, 15 that drives them to deny humans the capacity for self-choice, perhaps our most definitive characteristic. They would propose to deny human nature and replace humanity with a flock, willing to follow the infallible superman who knows best. But as history shows us, this ends more often in sorrow than in joy and, compared with the democratic processes of more successful governments, is not only morally offensive but politically offensive as well.
Let society grow then. Let it subconsciously move forward. Perhaps we will not reach perfection, but perhaps that isn't really desirable. After all, if we do not have to struggle in order to improve ourselves, what is the reward for excellence?
So, perhaps, the real answer is not to stop reaching for utopia, but to redefine what utopia is: not the perfect society, but not the status quo either, a society defined not by ourselves, but by all. And, if that's the best possible state a society can reach then, I ask, how is it not a utopia? After all, utopia is not what we would like society to be; it's society at its best.
1Simon, Caroline J. Introduction to Plato, the Republic, Hope College, http://www.hope.edu/academic/ids/171/Republic.html
2Possibly a misquote of Abraham Lincoln; replace “please” with “fool”
3The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Archiving Early America, http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/sedition/
4Afinogenov, Greg. Was Jefferson an Anarchist?, Slawkenbergius's Tales (May 8, 2007), http://slawkenbergius.blogspot.c om/2007/05/was-jefferson-anarchist.html
5Three-Fifth Compromise, Digital History, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=306
6Lloyd, Gordon. Introduction to the Massachusetts Ratification Convention, TeachingAmericanHistory.org http://teaching americanhistory.org/ratification//massachusetts.html
7Kelly, Martin. What is the Great Compromise?, About.com, http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/f/greatcompromise.htm
8Faria, Jr., Miguel A. “Part II: Maximilien Robespierre - The Incorruptible,” Bastille Day and the French Revolution, Hacienda Publishing, Inc. (July 21, 2004), http://www.haciendapub.com/lnc7.html
9Koeller, David W. The Bolshevik Revolution, World History Chronology (2003), http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/E astEurope/OctRev.html
10Trans. TK Chung. Woo, Philip. The Chinese Revolution of 1911, The Corner of the World (orig. 1980), http://www.thecorner.org/hist/china/chin-revo.htm
11Watkins, Thayer. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, 1966-1976, San Jose State University, http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cultrev.htm
12Stevenson, Karen. 1900-2000, Changes in Life Expectancy in the United States, ElderWeb (March 23, 2006) http://www. elderweb.com/home/node/2838
13Ten Great Public Health Achievements - United States, 1900-1999, CDC (April 2, 1999), http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/p review/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm
14Beck, Roy. IMMIGRATION: NO. 1 IN U.S. GROWTH: NEW LOOK SHOWS GREATER ROLE IN 1970-90 POPULATION INCREASE, DieOff.org (orig. The Social Contract, Winter 1991-1992), http://dieoff.org/page54.htm
15Martin Luther King, Jr. Quotes, Woopidoo! quotations, http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/authors/martin-luther-king/index.htm