But population? Get out. Way too inconvenient a truth. Take National Public Radio, for example. Of NPR’s sparse record of population pieces, just one or two actually address unsustainable population growth. But as the political right whittles away at family planning clinics across the nation, the latest NPR series, “The Baby Project,” devotes a plethora of articles to pregnancy, with the most serious subjects the problems some women have conceiving and birthing. If there is even a hint of too many babies, it is well hidden. This, even though a 2009 NPR story on U.S. pregnancies reported that half — yes, half — of all U.S. pregnancies are unintended. That’s a lot of unintended consumers adding to our future climate change.
And that’s what the right calls the “liberal” side of the mass media. The politically conservative U.S. mass media cover unsustainable population levels even less.
That pretty much reflects the appalling state of U.S. public education today on population. The U.S. approach to population issues across all levels of government, in terms of such things as education, attacks on family planning and tax deductions for children, is an exercise in thoughtlessness. The ramifications, however, are far more insidious and brutal. Women are culturally conditioned daily to welcome the idea of having children — plural, not one or none. How to support those children economically is not discussed. Indeed, our abysmal lack of adolescent sex educational programs ensures there will be plenty of young women who secure their destinies, and those of their babies, to brutal poverty and shortened lives through unwanted pregnancies and lack of choice. The latest available statistics from the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan tell the story: 1 in 5 American children lived in poverty in 2008; 1 in 3 if they were black or Latino.
Sure, there’s much talk and concern that birthrates are down and will result in not enough workers to support the elderly. But this argument is overblown; after all, a 70-year-old can be more economically productive than a 7-year-old. And a large, pre-working population inflicts costs on a society. Furthermore, the birthrates in developing nations remain high, and the consequences affect us all.
What to do? Stop the denial. Perpetual growth is the creed of a cancer cell, not a sustainable human society.
Promote and support family planning education at the family and community levels as a cheap way to reduce poverty and severe climate change. Support organizations that are trying to get contraceptives to the 200 million women in the world who lack and want them, and help them obtain equal rights, education and job opportunities. Access to contraceptives and reproductive freedom are rights, not luxuries, that ultimately benefit all of humanity. Vote for leaders who vigorously promote those humane solutions. And demand that media start educating the public every day on the role played by the unsustainable human numbers behind environmental degradation and human calamities — and start covering the solutions. The public needs a constant message: “It’s time to stop growing and become sustainable.”
We can do many things to solve environmental, economic and social problems, but each is a lost cause if we cannot bring our populations down to sustainable levels.
Hmm – this article has some good points, esp the last large paragraph and the authors have solid backgrounds in this area, however, I take issue with two key statements and therefore their whole analysis.
“But this argument is overblown; after all, a 70-year-old can be more economically productive than a 7-year-old. And a large, pre-working population inflicts costs on a society.”
? A 70 year old is not usually that productive – most 70 year olds I know that are vibrant and healthy are still not working full-time, let alone the vast majority that have retired or in poor health. A 7 year old is growing still and will Be an adult. They will be productive at that time. It’s not comparable. The statement could as easily compare a 70 year old to a 20 year old, which would alter their argument. Choosing a seven year old is arbitrary, it doesn’t make sense and doesn’t give their argument greater proof. Why 7? why not 8 months? And by that logic, why not, say, 28 or 34 – highly productive ages. Because, of course, then their argument doesn’t hold water.
“Furthermore, the birthrates in developing nations remain high, and the consequences affect us all.” – the birthrates are high because poverty goes hand in hand with low education rates, poor to no health care, high maternal mortality rates, no social framework in place, etc – however, at the same time a high number of children in developing countries die from poverty (hunger/malnutrition, disease, conflict). – The issue with developing countries is that the people living in them have hard lives, and this should be eradicated, not that the children of these countries are taking over the world (as implied in this article). However – given that birth rates in the US, parts of Europe, Japan, etc Are below sustainable rates these countries will end up depending on migration from other countries if the birthrates continue to flatline.
The key points in this article – for better government support etc, family planning, etc – is undermined by the issues above.