Population/Birth Control
Mar. 19th, 2009 05:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sobriqueOk, so I hear on the radio, that we're probably going to hit 8 billion on the planet by 2030. The thing they asked, which was dodged because it was politically sensitive, is the notion of stronger birth control (e.g. government enforced somehow).
Now the thing is, it's actually quite a lot harder in Britain today to adopt a child than it is to drop your own sprog. The problem isn't that there's people who want to have children, and are prepared for the commitment that means to their life.
Nor is it the people who don't want to have children - it's not a duty or anything, and actually you're doing the future some good by not breeding.
The problem is somewhere in the middle - the people who have 'accidents' or who aren't really prepared for what's actually involved. I mean, babys are hard work, and a serious commitment for the best part of 20 years. If you want to do a good job, then for the next 20 years you'll need to center your life around this little sproglet you've brought into the world. It's not something to do carelessly.
But where they're able to bring that out a bit when vetting people for adoption, they're really not so much when it comes to just breeding. Is it just me that thinks it's plain lunacy that it is SO MUCH harder to adopt a child, that's already in need of someone to look after them and bring them up, than it is to end up with your own kid?
So yes. Our population is growing - and that 8 billion includes an approximate doubling of the population of Africa. As we increase, our natural tendancy to act like locusts will mean serious problems - we're already nearing a point where if everyone in the world were to live in the style that the Europe and the US are accustomed to, then there wouldn't be enough farm land to do it. Advances in growth of foodstuffs can only go so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Specifically:
Yep, that's how long it'll take for the world population to double, as we implement better and better healthcare, quality of life, and ... well, all the other stuff that we want. That's somewhere below 50 years right now.
That's actually pretty scary - nothing can support geometric population expansion like that. A plague of humans is what we'll be. Consuming more, and ever more, as we each want to improve our quality of life. The solution ... well, there's two really. The first is to ignore the problem, let it hit crisis, and accept that a large proportion of the population of the world is just going to have to die. It's not very nice, but it IS what's going to happen. It's just a question of when. How much longer can we keep trying to keep up with geometric population growth, and ever improving the 'poverty line'.
The other, is a bit more humane - control population growth. Artificially limit rate of increase of the population of the planet, much as we artificially reduce death rate, infant mortality, and extend life expectancy. Having children shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege. There are enough people out there willing to be good parents, and to take full responsiblity for bringing up their child to be a happy, well rounded individual. To accept that this is a serious undertaking, and will take a large proportion of their life for 20 years.
So yes, I'm saying that I think that no one in the world should have a right to 'just have children'. I'm saying that if it take a serious effort to adopt a child, then it should take EVEN MORE to have one of your own. I'm saying that the future demands a smaller world population, if we want to maintain civilisation. I'm saying that having a child is far more complicated, and has far more long term consequences than learning to drive - if we make people have lessons and take tests to drive a car, we should be making people have lessons and take a test to be allowed the privilege of guiding a human life.
Now the thing is, it's actually quite a lot harder in Britain today to adopt a child than it is to drop your own sprog. The problem isn't that there's people who want to have children, and are prepared for the commitment that means to their life.
Nor is it the people who don't want to have children - it's not a duty or anything, and actually you're doing the future some good by not breeding.
The problem is somewhere in the middle - the people who have 'accidents' or who aren't really prepared for what's actually involved. I mean, babys are hard work, and a serious commitment for the best part of 20 years. If you want to do a good job, then for the next 20 years you'll need to center your life around this little sproglet you've brought into the world. It's not something to do carelessly.
But where they're able to bring that out a bit when vetting people for adoption, they're really not so much when it comes to just breeding. Is it just me that thinks it's plain lunacy that it is SO MUCH harder to adopt a child, that's already in need of someone to look after them and bring them up, than it is to end up with your own kid?
So yes. Our population is growing - and that 8 billion includes an approximate doubling of the population of Africa. As we increase, our natural tendancy to act like locusts will mean serious problems - we're already nearing a point where if everyone in the world were to live in the style that the Europe and the US are accustomed to, then there wouldn't be enough farm land to do it. Advances in growth of foodstuffs can only go so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Specifically:
Yep, that's how long it'll take for the world population to double, as we implement better and better healthcare, quality of life, and ... well, all the other stuff that we want. That's somewhere below 50 years right now.
That's actually pretty scary - nothing can support geometric population expansion like that. A plague of humans is what we'll be. Consuming more, and ever more, as we each want to improve our quality of life. The solution ... well, there's two really. The first is to ignore the problem, let it hit crisis, and accept that a large proportion of the population of the world is just going to have to die. It's not very nice, but it IS what's going to happen. It's just a question of when. How much longer can we keep trying to keep up with geometric population growth, and ever improving the 'poverty line'.
The other, is a bit more humane - control population growth. Artificially limit rate of increase of the population of the planet, much as we artificially reduce death rate, infant mortality, and extend life expectancy. Having children shouldn't be a right, it should be a privilege. There are enough people out there willing to be good parents, and to take full responsiblity for bringing up their child to be a happy, well rounded individual. To accept that this is a serious undertaking, and will take a large proportion of their life for 20 years.
So yes, I'm saying that I think that no one in the world should have a right to 'just have children'. I'm saying that if it take a serious effort to adopt a child, then it should take EVEN MORE to have one of your own. I'm saying that the future demands a smaller world population, if we want to maintain civilisation. I'm saying that having a child is far more complicated, and has far more long term consequences than learning to drive - if we make people have lessons and take tests to drive a car, we should be making people have lessons and take a test to be allowed the privilege of guiding a human life.
