« Comparison to Revolution | Main | Take them far away »

July 08, 2007

Limit population growth

Elizabeth and Michael Stoakes have the courage to propose that we “limit human population growth” in order to “preserve our natural world” (6/30, Letters, “Bird numbers decline”).

I say courage because many equate population control with the destruction of human life, as if all methods of limiting our numbers were the moral equivalent of murder.

The world’s population increases by over 200,000 each day. This is the net gain (births minus deaths). To give that number some perspective, Overland Park and Shawnee have a combined population of around 200,000.

To claim that all our environmental and social problems are the result of population growth would be simplistic, but the stresses on the environment from having to provide food, water, shelter, education, medical care, transportation and employment to an additional 65 million to 75 million every year are enormous.

The pressures are not only environmental. Many of our social and political problems worldwide could be alleviated if we allowed organizations such as International Planned Parenthood help families determine when they want to have children. We have seen that when families have a choice, the tendency is to have fewer children and to provide a better life for them.

Pablo La Rosa
Mission

Comments

irishguy

No, most historians would say that the New Deal SAVED this country from "socialism" which of course is the neo-con buzzword for communism.

katman

Sounds like "NOT SO BRAVE NEW WORLD". Didn't our country (U.S.) embrace socialism with the NEW DEAL? Many of those programs were intended as a temporary fix. Most should have been abandoned after WW II.

KATMAN

Mark K

These policies would do the most good where they are least likely to happen, i.e, third world countries with high birth rates. Programs such as social security and Medicare require MORE young people, not less, in order to sustain them. If you want proof, look to Europe, which has the highest percentage of elderly in the world.

Because we in the United States are turning toward socialism, we require working age people to support those who do not work. The only way to make a lower birth rate an economically good idea would be to go back to true capitalism. If each individual is responsible for his own life (supporting himself), then the birthrate could be allowed to fall. Until then, lower birth rates will have disastrous consequences for the US economy.

So here are your choices: Get rid of social security and Medicare, or keep encouraging people to have kids. Lower birthrates + longer lifespans = bankrupt and unsustainable federal government. Not that that's a bad thing. Its about time to start from scratch anyhow.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright