Your Take: Is Pop. Control Needed?

August 8th, 2009

by Brandon Lopez

“Cap and Trade,” “Cash for Clunkers,” Green Energy.……the list goes on and on. All are trying to achieve the same thing: a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. While these programs are certainly created with good intentions, they may not be enough to truly curb the impacts of climate change. According to research done by Oregon State University, none of these things will have enough of an impact on the environment unless one more important measure is taken: population control.

Earth viewed from space (NASA)

Population control is absolutely a controversial topic. However, recent estimates show that the world’s population will reach over 9 billion by 2050; this will result in less available resources and more emissions. The researchers also found that “the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives” (from the Oregonian). This means that even if a person were to drive a “green” car, and be energy/water conscious with appliances and light bulbs for his or her entire life, the existence of an extra child would offset these measures entirely and actually increase the parent’s carbon footprint by a huge margin. Some believe that population control would address this issue effectively. However, any discussion of population control evokes anger on all sides; programs that have been instituted in countries like China are often decried as unethical. So here are my questions for you:

Should governments take measures to limit population growth in the name of saving the environment? How, if at all, can governments limit the amount of offspring per parent? Would it be ethical to do so?

Share:

jadel

The population in the world is growing rapidly as of the past few decades, it is said by UNPD that by 2050 there will be 12.8 billion people in the entire world if the fertility rates of today remain constant. Who knows what will happen when there are 12.8 billion people living on our planet? The resources in our world are limited, and they are already running out, hence why water is conserved or else we would not have enough water to use in the future. In developing countries, such as India, there are large families partially because of the fact that males are preferred over females, therefore families often have many children in order to increase the number of males in the family. However, in the rural areas, the concept of birth control is not recognized.

There should be limits to human population growth because we do not know the carrying capacity of the world as of yet. Developing countries such as China and India have already tried to limit their population due to the rapid population growth. China has the one child policy and India is trying to limit the number of children in each household to two children. Limiting the population will allow for higher literacy rates, as well as a higher standard of living.

According to research, 1.6 billion people in the world today are under the age of 15, 1.6 billion is around a quarter of the world's population. This just shows how rapidly the population has been growing for the past decade, and it might just escalate even more if nothing is done about it.

Adele1993

I personally think that over population is a problem even if it is not linked with the idea of greenhouse gas emissions. However, there is no way that the government will be able to control the problem because people would feel like the government are trying to control things that should be personal choice.

JugglingJoe

Controlling the growth of the global population would be one of the most effective ways to not only limit the amount of greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere, but this would also reduce vastly the amount of other pollution and garbage that is produced, the global strain for natural resources, as well as space constraints in some parts of the world. Controlling population around the globe should be one of the major initiatives of organizations like the UN, along with eliminating poverty and spreading basic education. Indeed, with a lesser number of individuals to help, the task of aiding the people around the world becomes much easier. Ethically, there are not any major problems with the simple idea that each person is allowed one offspring. Similar to the carbon trading system, a global "offspring credit" trading system could similarly be put in place to allow those that want more than one child to counterbalance those who decide not to have children. Making this system a global one would have clear benefits, as many developed countries (such as Japan, France, Germany) have population which is slowly declining, where as nations such as India and China (two nations which will unarguable have a massive effect on the world during the next century) still have many people who see economic and cultural benefits to having multiple children. These opinions will have to change eventually in order to preserve the planet, but to put it simply: it is better to have many children and thereby create a resource-scarce world, or to have a single child and thereby preserve the planet as well as your child's future. Some people may call this an infringement on individual rights, but if each individual alive today creates two people, that is one of the easiest ways to make resources scarcer, resource wars more common, and the planet dirtier. It does not take an individual with a college degree to understand that when the number of people increase but the planet stays the same size, that means a smaller piece of the pie for each individual.

As far as forced abortions and the China situation goes, the case varies depending on your ethnicity, where you live, and (in reality) how much money you have. As unpleasant as it may be to consider the following analogy, abortion and sterilization are ways of enforcing compliance with the law. The same way that in some countries you are not allowed to carry a gun without some kind of permission from the government, or that is you are found with dangerous materials they will be taken away from you, if it is recognized that population control is an established law (as it is in China) then individuals who do not comply with the established law need to be forced to obey it. As unpleasant as it is for a single person to have a forced abortion/sterilization, I am sure that having a globe with 9 or 10 billion individuals would be unpleasant for 9 or 10 billion people. (I support pre-conception birth control, such as condoms, far more than post-conception birth-control, such as abortion)

bah

uhh dr strangelovin the chinese government's health branch said that they are encouraging young chinese couples to have another child

Luke

Mandatory sterilization for everyone!

drstrangelovin

China forces you to have an abortion if you already have one child. The government could never ethically control the population, nor should it. Limiting the populatin would not magically solve the problem of carbon emissions causing global warming, if such a problem can be solved by governmental measures.

Next Gen Journal

Your Take: Is Pop. Control Needed?