On Overpopulation
Recently, a certain meme has started to bother me. I mostly encounter it jokingly, but with a little probing, I find that people really do believe the assertion the jokes make to be true. That's not too bad. What gets me is that the jokes and the underlying sentiment tend to be self-righteous, a little condescending, and indeed, counterproductive.
Here's the gist of the jokes: People who are enthusiastic baby-makers are lauded by society, despite the fact that they are polluting the world with children and contributing to overpopulation. People who choose not to have children are not given equal praise, despite being more responsible when it comes to sustainability of resources, overpopulation, and the overall well-being of the world.
I believe this assertion to be a fallacy, and I would even like to propose that the opposite is true.
While the underlying logic (baby-making = more people = higher population) seems to be air-tight common sense, the fact of the matter is it that this reasoning is deficient and simplistic.
First, let's delve more deeply into the root causes of the phenomenon of overpopulation. That is, why are more persons being created than are dying. For a long time, the survival of the human race depended on maximizing the birthrate, and the evolutionary mechanisms are still in place. Obviously, the survival of the species is no longer jeopardized in the same way. But consider what else has changed: we know how babies are made, we have the privilege of choice when it comes parenthood, and people live long past the age of fertility. The changes I have noted are not universal, however. It is only in the wealthier, healthier, and better educated populations where these changes have taken place. And indeed, most of these populations are either steady or on the decline. So much so that several governments are offering incentives for having children.
The fact that populations are not growing evenly gives a whiff of my point: we Americans do not live in a population with a problematic birthrate. The choice to have one or two children, even three will not impact this fact thanks to the number of people who simply don't want to be parents and can choose not to be. All of us who are fortunate enough to live in the First World are blessed with choice.
So let us look at the areas in which population is problematically on the rise. Consider the shared traits of these populations: extreme poverty, utter lack of education (particularly sexual education), and in the most problematic regions like Africa, artificially sustained starvation. When I say "artificially" sustained starvation, I mean this: we provide just enough food and aid to Africa to allow the population to sustain a high birthrate. The medicinal aid we provide has most helped to reduce the infant mortality rate. While the overall mortality rate is obscene due to war and starvation, because we keep the people fed just long enough for them to bare and raise many children in the peak years of fertility before they die--they have far, far more children than those who can afford to. That is, if not for our aid and advancements in ability to feed Africa, the horrors of starvation, war, and rampant disease would solve the problem of overpopulation by running their natural course of limiting survival.
I find this fact painfully ironic. While I have no hard data, I believe it is common for the people with the altruistic desire to fight overpopulation via abstaining from having children to be among the most fervent supporters of the current ineffective and counterproductive efforts at philanthropy and aid in Africa. That's petty of me to point out...but might make for a pretty good mean-spirited joke.
Here is my assertion:
The cause of overpopulation is not an overabundance of people who choose to have children, but rather an overabundance of people who have not been provided that choice, either because of ignorance, lack of of preventative measures, or the necessity of having a larger family to eek out an existence while they can. These are the problems that those of us who are earnestly concerned must strive to solve.
So how can we begin to address these problems? Clearly, it will take more than individual abstinence. Rather, it will take greater accessibility of higher-level education, brilliant innovation (even the greatest efforts by some of the most well-meaning and devoted professionals have often exacerbated the problem), a far far more earnest dedication of resources and attention, and a more wide-spread understanding of the problem among concerned citizens in the First World.
What can a person like me do? I plan to donate generously to charities that I have been thoroughly convinced are effective. Unfortunately, I will not dedicate my life to the problem. As for my choice to raise one or two children, I make this choice dependent upon the following: I will insure that my children be well-educated and I will make every effort to instill in them a deep empathy and caring for the well-being of humanity. I hope that my children will be better people than me. I can and will provide them with all the means they need to fulfill that goal. If I succeed, I will be providing the world with the ultimate means to solve the problem of overpopulation: More caring, hard-working, informed, and thoughtful individuals who themselves are blessed with the essential power of choice. We need enthusiastic parents dearly. Don't deride them; the joke's on you.
Here's the gist of the jokes: People who are enthusiastic baby-makers are lauded by society, despite the fact that they are polluting the world with children and contributing to overpopulation. People who choose not to have children are not given equal praise, despite being more responsible when it comes to sustainability of resources, overpopulation, and the overall well-being of the world.
I believe this assertion to be a fallacy, and I would even like to propose that the opposite is true.
While the underlying logic (baby-making = more people = higher population) seems to be air-tight common sense, the fact of the matter is it that this reasoning is deficient and simplistic.
First, let's delve more deeply into the root causes of the phenomenon of overpopulation. That is, why are more persons being created than are dying. For a long time, the survival of the human race depended on maximizing the birthrate, and the evolutionary mechanisms are still in place. Obviously, the survival of the species is no longer jeopardized in the same way. But consider what else has changed: we know how babies are made, we have the privilege of choice when it comes parenthood, and people live long past the age of fertility. The changes I have noted are not universal, however. It is only in the wealthier, healthier, and better educated populations where these changes have taken place. And indeed, most of these populations are either steady or on the decline. So much so that several governments are offering incentives for having children.
The fact that populations are not growing evenly gives a whiff of my point: we Americans do not live in a population with a problematic birthrate. The choice to have one or two children, even three will not impact this fact thanks to the number of people who simply don't want to be parents and can choose not to be. All of us who are fortunate enough to live in the First World are blessed with choice.
So let us look at the areas in which population is problematically on the rise. Consider the shared traits of these populations: extreme poverty, utter lack of education (particularly sexual education), and in the most problematic regions like Africa, artificially sustained starvation. When I say "artificially" sustained starvation, I mean this: we provide just enough food and aid to Africa to allow the population to sustain a high birthrate. The medicinal aid we provide has most helped to reduce the infant mortality rate. While the overall mortality rate is obscene due to war and starvation, because we keep the people fed just long enough for them to bare and raise many children in the peak years of fertility before they die--they have far, far more children than those who can afford to. That is, if not for our aid and advancements in ability to feed Africa, the horrors of starvation, war, and rampant disease would solve the problem of overpopulation by running their natural course of limiting survival.
I find this fact painfully ironic. While I have no hard data, I believe it is common for the people with the altruistic desire to fight overpopulation via abstaining from having children to be among the most fervent supporters of the current ineffective and counterproductive efforts at philanthropy and aid in Africa. That's petty of me to point out...but might make for a pretty good mean-spirited joke.
Here is my assertion:
The cause of overpopulation is not an overabundance of people who choose to have children, but rather an overabundance of people who have not been provided that choice, either because of ignorance, lack of of preventative measures, or the necessity of having a larger family to eek out an existence while they can. These are the problems that those of us who are earnestly concerned must strive to solve.
So how can we begin to address these problems? Clearly, it will take more than individual abstinence. Rather, it will take greater accessibility of higher-level education, brilliant innovation (even the greatest efforts by some of the most well-meaning and devoted professionals have often exacerbated the problem), a far far more earnest dedication of resources and attention, and a more wide-spread understanding of the problem among concerned citizens in the First World.
What can a person like me do? I plan to donate generously to charities that I have been thoroughly convinced are effective. Unfortunately, I will not dedicate my life to the problem. As for my choice to raise one or two children, I make this choice dependent upon the following: I will insure that my children be well-educated and I will make every effort to instill in them a deep empathy and caring for the well-being of humanity. I hope that my children will be better people than me. I can and will provide them with all the means they need to fulfill that goal. If I succeed, I will be providing the world with the ultimate means to solve the problem of overpopulation: More caring, hard-working, informed, and thoughtful individuals who themselves are blessed with the essential power of choice. We need enthusiastic parents dearly. Don't deride them; the joke's on you.