Labor Pains: The Terrible Implications of Out of Control Birth Rates
James DuganThe year 2050 seems far off. When I was reading the article below, I wasn’t thinking that these facts even applied to me. But with simple calculations and a catching of breath, I realized that it is just 41 years from now. That is what makes this article so disturbing: Population growth driving climate change, poverty: experts. How many people can the earth feed, provide medicine, and offer shelter? This is a question only scientists seem to want to answer. Clearly the Catholic Church doesn’t want to address the real conclusion that out of control birth rates are putting the world in danger and creating distraught poverty throughout the world, especially in Africa.
It is a surreal reality that the amount of people will double and get close to 11 billion by mid century. Even in America, we hear about overcrowding. We see it on our clogged highways and feel it at the cramped supermarket aisles. America can make you feel that any problem is fixable. The ideal of America is always for expansion and growth, and this would logically include population. With the recent emphasis on global climate control and being inundated by the message of becoming “more green”, we are confronted to examine our actions and the institutions we support. Are we doing everything to help support the sustainability of our environment and human life? Are we trying to prevent poverty on a local and global scale? Are we contributing to the violence over resources here and abroad? The article clearly states that we are not doing enough.
Individuals have determined their rate of procreation in western societies for most of civilized time. The article suggests that perhaps we should change this policy. China realized their predicament and enacted laws to control their citizen’s birthrates. These laws seemed a violation of natural law and individual rights. The individual choice of giving birth was one of responsibility for the offspring to live and prosper. The logic would follow that the parent(s) would be the person who would support this child or subsequent children by their lifestyle and wealth. Clearly, this is not the way it is working. The article states that over 50% of 80 million births are unplanned. The individual in modern society has forgotten their responsibility to care and plan for the well being of their children. The state needs to take control and perhaps enact a global restriction on childbirth, since most of the global populace are having children without thinking of the environmental or human survival implications.
This does seem a violation of individual rights since giving birth is the sole domain of the woman. But if you think of the man being the representative of society, we do hold the father responsible for the monetary obligations if they shirk their duties. This also seems a clear violation of female rights since the state or global community would control their natural right to give birth. From this article, the implications of letting the individual choose the amount of offspring puts us in danger. Each nation should have a study done based on their resources of how many people can live off their natural resources. The idea of a “tipping point” has been part of science fiction for the past fifty years, but now is the time for real action.
Most of the growth of the population, as well as poverty rates, will occur on the continent of Africa. This is also the place where the Catholic Church is growing the fastest. Their religious race with Islam to acquire converts will come with many implications. The Catholic Church can play a pivotal role in decreasing the birthrates, raising the standard of living, and establishing a more humane society with its message of social justice. But one thing they need to do is lift the ban on contraception and help stem the environmental and social calamity that will occur if nothing changes. The ideology of selfishness and murder associated with contraception needs to change so better social planning will result in the sharing of resources, improving of health education, and establishing a higher standard of living. The Catholic Church can help with over population with altering one idea that has nothing to do with the union of sperm and egg. They can logically make an argument because neither is a child and thus help the states and countries offer free contraception to slow population growth.
With the inevitable coming of universal medicine to the United States, the question will arise on free contraception for our citizens. This seems a perfect time to start to change ideas on the implication for child birth on the environment, economy, and society. If the faiths of the world can support climate control and preventing overpopulation, the world’s governments will have a more profound impact in helping divert this pending disaster. The threat is real. The tipping point is close, as close as 41 years.
Do you think this is a problem? What are some other ways countries and institutions may help prevent over-population?
Reader Comments (3)
It's a very interesting take on serious future crisis. I remember hearing an NPR segment about water shortages occurring by 2020, especially in 3rd world nations, and that we will eventually see countries going to war over this most important resource. It's unfathomable to me to think of a war developing out of a desire for water, but the scientific predictions seem to be accurate. With polar ice caps melting, and access to fresh water declining, it may be only a matter of years before we see the population increase and environmental decline collide to cause horrendous effects. This apparently is already occurring right here in America. I learned when I was out on the west coast a few years back that the US has diverted the Colorado river through numerous dams to supply more water to areas that experience severe droughts. However, what most people don't know is that this process turns the Colorado into a small stream in Mexico, thus depleting an essential resource for an already downtrodden people. Obviously the effects of this can be seen in the high illegal immigration rates, which in turn is causing more densely populated areas with no work or resources for its people. This excessive migration is addressed in the article, and will be a major threat for developed nations, as well as 3rd world ones. Essentially my point is that we won't have to wait until 2050 to see the negative effects of population growth.
As for your questions, I'm not sure if I accept your premise that this should be the Catholic Church's responsibility, nor do I necessarily think we should resort to drastic measures of population control, like the ones that exist in China. There are already major scientific developments occurring to discover new, more efficient means of energy. Renewable waste for one is a wonderful measure that if properly implemented, could be very effective in creating sustainable energy. The status quo of nuclear energy, oil, or hydrogen powered plants will not be enough to combat this amazing growth. The G20 Summit meeting this weekend in Pittsburgh, a place once known as the mecca of the steeling industry responsible for most the American cities growth, I think could be a wonderful opportunity for world leaders to discuss and collaborate ideas for supporting unorthodox, cutting-edge research into creating new, effective types of energy, so they can supply themselves and someday others with the resources they need to grow and progress without an infringement on their rights.
Your Colorado example brings up great points, and I think I will run with it. It could explain the high rates of immigration from Mexico. As a very Catholic country, perhaps a change in the contraception policy would benefit them. If there is not enough water, then why would you have a policy that prohibits people from using birth control based on dogma.
You make a good point that the movement of poor people will move to places of wealth, most of time illegally. This can only increase racism and isolation policies that would cause violence and anger. The world has to move on population now, even before we solve the water crisis, which is very real and pertinent. Even a modest start would cut the amount of unplanned pregnancies in half, thus resulting 20 million less humans a year. By 2020, that would be around 250 million people, close to the population of America.
The last point was excellent, but I disagree. It is the same as a smoker who refuses to stop smoking and so adds exercise to their life to decrease the impact of the negative behavior. While renewable energy are positive steps, they will only cover the new energy needs we will have and do not take in consideration all the new people with energy needs. We need to conserve and limit, not because we will save, but because we will not have enough.
America's idea that innovation will result out of necessity is noble, but it still doesn't take the world's needs in the equation. A world that will increasingly encroach on our resources unless we provide for them. My ideas are not humane or idealistic, I know that. They seem selfish and caustic, but if war is a result of the lack of resources, then this is one step towards peace.
Thanks
I also wonder what action is needed to combat such an pandemic. I agree that religious influences hold a large share of responsibility for the reproductive status in this country, but cannot be held fully responsible. Contraception is perfectly legal and encouraged in many places in modern America, but the Catholic tradition still to this day cites God’s smiting of Onan as proof of it as sin. With an exaggerated analogy I think I can liken the hesitation the Catholic Church has with the current issue to one they had previously. As I recall, the Catholic Church was against the scientific belief that the earth was not the center of the galaxy. They cited the Bible as explicit proof of their claim and judged the opposition as heretics. In eventually accepting the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the Church did not make any concessions in the dogma of their religion and instead simply acknowledged that an elder, perhaps simpler, human explanation was the culprit in their ignorance. The same could be said for the current “sin” of safe sex. It is an archaic belief that wasting a man’s seed is sinful while I hold to the belief that it is, in fact, the responsible decision. A change in this ancient dogmatic stance would surely reflect in reduced numbers of unplanned pregnancies. However, the effect, I believe, would be far from solving the issue at hand.
In terms of adopting the Chinese policy of government sanctioned family sizes, I find this perhaps to be the backwards approach. Why would we allow our government to disallow us to have another child when we want one, when they already have disallowed us (in a majority of states) to not have a child we don’t want? Taking morality and personal bias out of the question (as much as one can I guess) should we not revisit our stance on abortion before we yield our right to breed when we want? A couple who recognizes they are unfit parents and want to have an abortion are unable, yet your first suggestion is to disallow parents (even the fit parents) to have more children regardless of planning or social factors. If we are solely concerned with overpopulation, than I think the first step would be to legalize abortion in more circumstances.
Part of me, though, thinks that perhaps Swift was right, and in such a case, I’ll take my infant with a barbeque-glaze please.