There are a lot of global problems rising to the media surface at this present time, economic things like oil, food, housing, war spending, health care, and so on. I have a daily relationship with the gas prices and other necessities like milk, bread, and water, and the more I observe my surroundings the more the roots of the problems become clear to me: the government's on-going affair with corporations, overpopulation, the growing lack of quality, and the general apathy and ignorance which sadly plagues us all.
Nothing will be fixed when Bush leaves the White House, nothing will be fixed if a Democrat is elected to be the president, unless the barrage of stupidity and self interest ceases to exist in its entirety on the higher levels of the economic playing field. Politicians are of a different breed of man; I don't know about you, but I can't remember the last time I made a serious decision based on the rantings of the lobbyists stepping on my heels.
It seems to me that the government wants to keep things the way they are. This is not to say that only Republicans are responsible for this chaos, I truly believe that what's happening is a collective effort on all branches of governmental institutions, and this is where the main problem lies. Talk is cheap, and no one wants to budge. There are too many sleazy profits falling into the wrong pockets from the oil industry, from the corporate farms, from outsourcing work, from the pathetic American dollar, from the pharmaceutical industry, from the numerous private insurance companies. The balance has become severely skewed in favor of the people who need the money much, much less than the rest.
The way things are going, I fear it will be decades until the dust settles. The smart thing to do would be to stop having children. I know how cold and unsympathetic that might sound, but the truth is that overpopulation is a major problem. If there are some seven billion of us today, there will be exponentially more and more of us just in the coming years alone, and if you think the global food and fuel crisis is bad now, wait and see what happens then. Obviously the whole world shouldn't turn into China because of all of this, I believe that the people should always have a choice when it comes to starting or expanding their own families, that's a basic human right.
But instead of breeding, why not adopt? This would not only aide the unfortunate children of the world, but it would mean less contributions to the ever-growing population, and therefore less strain on resources (including education, which has plummeted dramatically). The problem with adoption is obviously the long, pricey paperwork battle between the parent(s), the agency, and the country of choice. I believe if a person or a couple wants to adopt a child, the process should not be so incredibly overwhelming. The background checks on the people who want to adopt a child should always be scrupulous and thorough, and this is obvious for many reasons. However I feel that instead of all the headaches and wallet implosions there should be an easier way for children to find warm, caring homes to live in.
If America conducted an experiment (which is something this country seems very fond of doing) where no one has a child for a year, what would the result be January 1st of the next year? How about two, three years? What if other overpopulated nations did a similar, less communistic experiment? What would the rules be? If a family has another child, would there be serious ramifications? I'm not suggesting for any harsh and painful laws to be implemented, but just the thought makes me wonder whether this would be a positive impact on life in the long run.
Losing a generation of descendants also has a lot of downsides, therefore some sort of balance would need to be reached. I realize that every time something of this "radical" nature is suggested as a solution option to a looming issue in this country, there is a lot of religious, partisan, intellectual and even scientific backlash. It seems to me that the only ones which actually matter are the latter two, and I would love for an intelligent, international conversation to happen on these sorts of ideas.
The suggestion I proposed above has a lot of holes and discrepancies; first of all it's not original by any means, it alone cannot be the solution to everything, it is not certain if it will actually solve much of anything at all, there is no way for anyone to ethically test it on America and other countries unless they create one computer simulation after another, and there would be hardly any way to convince most people to stop having children without resorting to the Chinese method. But just the same it has some logical potential, in combination with other personal responsibilities such as recycling and using less resources, and the end of corporate reign. I only bring up the topic of overpopulation because lately I've been dosing equal parts watching CNN and reading The Great Dialogues of Plato. Socrates does a wonderful thing to the human mind, but I cannot say the same for CNN. If you have suggestions, tell them to me. I crave a discussion on how to solve problems, or even just to keep things from getting any worse.
Some facts on population growth:
- In the 20th century, global population grew from 1.65 billion to 6 billion people.
- Almost 80% percent of that increase occurred since 1950. The peak global rate of growth was 2.04% during the late 1960s, and an annual increment of 86 million persons during the late 1980s, which is the largest increment recorded in history.
- Sine the 1950s, life expectancy increased by almost 10 years (from 66 to 76) in more developed regions (20 years, 41 to 64, in less developed regions).
- It took just 12 years (from '87 to '99) for the world to add its most recent billion people, the shortest period of time in world history for 1 billion people to be added.
- From '65 to '70, the world total fertility rate has declined by 45% from 4.9 births per woman, to 2.7 births per woman during 2000 to 2005.
- Recently less developed regions dropped from 6.0 to 2.9 births per woman, while in more developed regions it dropped from 2.4 to a historical low of 1.2, and an annual net addition of about 77 million people.
- Even though fertility has declined to relatively moderate levels in most developing regions, a large and growing number of births are still occurring annually, owing to the continued growth in the number of women of childbearing age, a legacy of past high fertility levels.
- From '65 to '70, the average number of births per year in the less developed regions was 101 million; more recently it's more than 120 million.
- Based on the medium-fertility variant (which assumes replacement-level fertility of 2.1 children per woman) global population is projected to reach 9.3 billion people in 2050.
- In 2005, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party wrote the following about the one-child policy: "Fertility has declined to below replacement levels. The government's birth control program has been successfully re-oriented toward service. The government is no longer the main guarantor of food, shelter, education, and employment oppotunities. The overall standard of living for the Chinese population has increased rapidly. China does not face a food supply problem. ..."
- Bureaucratic inertia and political caution would postpone the change (removing the one-child policy) for as long as possible, perhaps only after the crisis [in China] escalates further. But Chinese demographic shows that a further delay will result in higher long-term costs; indeed changes must be made in the next 10 years if China is to avert greater hardship.
|
----------------
Now playing: Morrissey - Billy Budd
via FoxyTunes