Two for Me...None for You?
Another rather predictable article on the issue of global population and the need for restrictions on reproduction levels.
The line that I find most telling in this article comes early, and acts as the presupposition for all that follows:
"Let's concede up front that nothing short of a catastrophic population crash (think of the film Children of Men, set in a world without children) would make much difference to climate change, water scarcity, or land shortages over the next decade or so."
Or, to translate: Let's assume that there is no room to discuss the West - and particularly America's - extravagant use of natural resources and a corresponding need for fundamental lifestyle changes.
The article already notes that population levels in developed Western nations have dropped dramatically. In fact, what the article doesn't mention is that in much of Europe, reproduction levels have declined markedly in recent decades to the point where the population is not even replacing itself. The French, the Italians - practically all of the European nationalities and cultures are dying off. They are being replaced by a rapid influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe and the Middle East and North Africa.
What this means effectively is that the proposal to limit reproduction levels will be a limit placed on somebody else. The West, with already too-low reproduction levels - would obviously not be asked to reduce reproduction even further and eliminate their culture. At least not *all* countries in the West would be asked to do this. So the implication is that those areas of the world that are reproducing at higher rates would need to be the ones that curtailed reproduction levels.
But let's go beyond this. If the argument is being made that the Earth can only sustain a certain population level, is that population level going to be distributed equally or proportionately amongst all of the various national/ethnic/cultural groups currently represented? Let's say that the Chinese and the Indians and residents of Africa are all asked to reproduce less. How much less? An equal percentage each? Who decides? Who enforces? And if it's the West - with a declining population as it is - attempting to enforce this on larger parts of the world, what if they refuse? What if they realize that if the West were eliminated, they could improve their lifestyles that much faster?
If the Earth can only sustain a certain level of population, it's a very short argument to say that only the best of the human species should be reproducing. Only the brightest, the most productive, the most innovative, the most refined. The whole issue of eugenics becomes front and center again (not that it's ever really gone away). How do we make those that are being born the best that they can be, since we're asking (or demanding) that so many others not reproduce? And how many 'others' are necessary to ensure that the best and brightest have all that they need in order to produce an even better generation of humans down the road? Population may be an issue. Consumption is certainly an issue. But lurking behind these - and behind proposed solutions - are a host of other implications and ramifications that go well beyond the cheery promise that we get to keep the standard of living that we're accustomed to.
Posted by Paul Nelson at 6/10/2009 11:09 AM 
Categories: Citizenship, Parenting, Economics, Philosophy, Current Events
Categories: Citizenship, Parenting, Economics, Philosophy, Current Events
My son once did an extensive research project on this topic...he discovered that if people stood shoulder to shoulder, ALL HUMAN BEINGS ON EARTH could fit on 1/4 of an island in New Zealand.
Granted, there is situational over-population in certain areas due to inability to provide. However, this suggests more toward our own lack of service and sharing with those less fortunate than ourselves than it does toward that of a God who created an earth which could not sufficiently contain and SUStain all of His chosen and created peoples.
BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY!
Thanks for your great post.
Wow! What shall we next discuss...perhaps the fact that over 97% of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is created naturally through oceanic water vapors...and that raised levels of carbon dioxide actually help to sustain and enrich quality of life on earth? (Greenhouses INJECT carbon dioxide into plants to get BETTER growth out of them). Interesting, eh?
Reply to this
The challenge - and it is a real challenge - is that despite the appeal of New Zealand, we're not going to be able to get everyone to move there for the massive global snuggle. We live spread out - or not so spread out - in a rather inconvenient factor. And this is complicated further by the fact that a small number of people are less concerned about making sure their people get food than they are about making sure that they can retain their power and control. Sin wreaks devastating effects, and the effects of the curse in Genesis 3 are not just a matter of the earth or people, but both.
And I'm always open for new discussion suggestions! I have read with interest the recent articles talking about the growing realization of the massive impact that sealife such as jellyfish can have on the environment by the way they circulate oceanic waters so that more carbon dioxide can be trapped and dragged down to the bottom of the ocean. Also interesting to see new studies regarding the importance - and lack of understanding - of the role that tundra plays on our atmosphere. So much to learn, so many variables to juggle - and yet for the sake (at least sometimes) of some quick bucks and 15 minutes of fame, so many people are willing to make so many broad and sweeping generalizations about the level of control we have over our earth. A little humility might go a long way towards changing people's attitudes about how they live their lives, as well as their assumptions about who is in control of their lives!
Reply to this