Some Thoughts on Reducing World Overpopulation.

So the other day I identified overpopulation as the overriding concern of the 21st Century. A decrease in the amount of human beings has the potential to ameliorate many of the dire conditions we seem to be facing. I also posited the theory that we could confront that problem through a humane approach that minimizes suffering. I want to be clear that I believe the world population will take a hit, one way or another. If we don't take this seriously, we risk allowing nature to come up with its own ways to spread waves of death and disease. In fact this could happen reagardless of what we do through intentionality. But we should be able to figure out ways to affect a change without imposing additional pains on the world community.

Clearly we have the ability to address population concerns in our own nation. A fair objection to moving in that direction is that we are not currently overpopulated. We do have over 300 million people on our landmass. I don't doubt that we could squeeze more in without immediate disaster. But I wonder why we would want to. There is already much discontent over rising imigration. American citizens are anxious about the availability of jobs and social resources. That problem is not likely to go away in the coming years, and I don't believe that building a wall across our border is an efficient solution. If we continue on our course we will eventually encounter difficulties with congestion akin to that of developing nations. We do not have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines while the rest of the world descends into disorder.

There was once a time when our political climate supported an isolationist strategy toward the world community. For better or worse, this is not the case. Besides, when food and water become scarce, large waves of humanity are going to be on the move. Unless we are willing and able to mow down hordes of desperate foreign nationals, we are going to be forced to involve ourselves in their situation.

Within our own borders we can certainly set policies which discourage reproduction. One simple way to do this is to offer tax incentives for people who have less than two children. Obviously if a woman decides not to procreate, then she should reap the greatest rewards. For those who are uncertain how to keep themselves from getting pregnant, we must offer education and services to assist them. It's unlikely that the Christian Coalition will allow the government to subsidize abortion, but we may be able to convince church leaders that birth control is a necessity. If not, then a massive government-backed P.R. campaign must be initiated to target their followers. We can position ourselves as a dominant nation as long as we are in the forefront of population control. We have a good resource base to sustain a large amount of citizens. The conditions in the United States are simply not as dire as in other regions. The most important thing is to preserve the notion of choice. People can not and should not be compelled to stop procreation. We must make it a more desirable option to make the opposite decision.

Obviously I am not advocating that we impose a population reduction strategy on other nations' governments. But just as within our own country, we should be promoting that end result to the best of our ability. We should reconsider our current practice of sending food abroad. Despite the fact that we helped create the conditions that encouraged overpopulation in regions that simply cannot support them, we should not compound our guilt. Our humane assistance should consist of birth control alternatives. By giving them food aid alone, we merely prolong the suffering over subsequent generations. While I'm aware that this suggestion sounds callous, I don't see any other way to resolve the situation. It's a hard reality, but ignoring it is not truly humane. It's just a quick solution for making ourselves feel better about our own overconsumption. We should not be in the business of trying to spread our way of life. The Earth simply cannot sustain that.

I don't mean that we should simply cease contribution of food aid, but that we should tie it to the acceptance of birth control programs. It is always within a nation's prerogative to refuse to participate, but by doing so they should be willing to forfeit all aid. Either they are self-sustaining, or they are not. If they are not, then they have no right to expect to set the terms of the charity that they accept.