Population Growth Imperils Future of Humanity
Dangers of Overpopulation Call for Rethinking Individual Freedom
Apr 22, 2009
In 1795 the French philosopher, Marquis de Condorcet, envisioned a future in which “men will know that” their duties “consist not in … giving existence to a great number of beings, but happiness…they will have for their object the general welfare of the human species; of the society in which they live…and not the puerile idea of encumbering the earth with useless and wretched mortals.”
Overpopulation Linked to Environmental Degradation and Urban Sprawl
Two hundred years later, many argue that the human species has “encumbered the earth” with its runaway growth. Overpopulation has not only locked billions of “wretched mortals” into poverty but also caused the degradation of the environment, the destruction of wildlife habitats and extinction of other species, and the sprawl of urban growth.
Certainly the world is at a crisis point, as Stanford Professor of Population Studies, Paul Ehrlich, asserted this week on the NPR Diane Ream Show. Author of The Population Bomb and The Dominant Animal, Professor Ehrlich discussed the implications of recent data on fertility rates.
With the largest growth in the least developed countries where contraception and other efforts at birth control are obstructed, and a surge in fertility rates expected when women in developed countries now in their prime child-bearing years begin to reproduce, gains made in the last twenty-five years could stall.
Couples Choosing to Have Only Two Children Are Ethical and Patriotic
While citizens in democratic countries cringe at the suggestion that nations adopt China’s one-baby policy, Professor Ehrlich makes an appeal to reason; he asserts that the ethical and patriotic action would be for couples to choose to have only two children. He insists this is not a class issue. Everyone should put the wellbeing of society ahead of their individual desires.
He suggests, too, that people be required to “do something good” in order to be allowed to reproduce. While this sounds radical - and indeed elicited an accusation that Professor Ehrlich was condoning a Nazi-style program of eugenics - one should consider it in the spirit in which it is given, that of real concern for the quality of life of future generations.
Limiting Family Size Is Not Eugenics
“Is this advocating eugenics?” Professor Ehrlich asks. No, it is advocating education and responsibility. He feels that when given information and allowed access to contraceptives, and when urged to think about the effects on their children’s and their grandchildren’s future, people naturally choose to limit the number of children they have.
Certainly many people feel that having children is a sacred right. But it is time to question traditional impulses for larger families. With the decline in child and infant mortality and the move from rural to urban life styles, large families are no longer necessary to ensure that a sufficient number of offspring survive into adulthood.
Controlling Population Growth Outweighs Personal Freedom
The core of this issue is the balance between individual freedom and social responsibility. Does the “pursuit of happiness” permit individuals to act in ways that demean the quality of life for future generations?
Enlightenment thinkers such as Condorcet would argue that it does not. In order to prevent the “premature destruction of … beings who may have received life” that comes without limits on population growth, a destruction that is “so contrary to nature and to social prosperity,” having children must be seen as much a human right upon which there are limits as an exercise of personal freedom.
 |
 |
 |
