Birth Control and Population

Birth Control and Population

According to Paul Ehrlich cited in the article "Too Many People," population issues in underdeveloped countries (UDCs) encompass rapid growth rates, birth rates vastly exceeding the death rate because of high percentages of young people, inadequate living standards, and serious problems with high urban concentrations.

The consequences include resource depletion, ecosystem destruction, mass starvation, and a further deterioration of living stands. And, although not directly articulated, Ehrlich hits at political instability because rising expectations based on the knowledge of affluence in overdeveloped countries (ODCs) can't be realized. The conclusion Ehrlich reaches is that the overpopulation crisis justifies the imposition of mandatory birth control measures in UDCs that will result in zero population growth. While this view may initially seem undemocratic in nature, the reality is that his proposal is the only way to cope with the situation. To illustrate this point, this paper explores questions related to the mandatory birth control measures and provides answers that affirm the validity of them.

So, is it fair to just target UDCs? The answer has to be yes because they are the ones with the largest problem. As Ehrlich explains, double times for populations in the UDCs range around twenty to thirty-five years. In contrast, doubling times for the populations of the ODCs tend to be dramatically higher, in the fifty to as much as two hundred year range. To put this in perspective, five developing countries today are responsible for more than fifty percent of the world's increase in population: India, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria.

Simply put, it makes sense to target the problem where the problem is occurring. Most ODCs can adequately nourish their population; most UDCs cannot. Economic inequality is unfortunate, but it is a reality for which a solution must be applied to.

Why can't we simply raise the living standards of UDCs and preserve procreation as a basic human right? While it's true that as industrialization progressed in ODCs, the number of children decreased, there's no hard evidence that economics was the main driver of the decrease in family size or, at the least, surely not the only driver. Ehrlich acknowledges that certain economic factors such as reduced reliance on child labor and the expense to raise and educate children may have played a part in birth reduction in maturing ODCs, but concludes that there may have been a reduction in the desire to have lots of children. However, the author does a poor job of describing factors that cause people to have many children and his argument could have been greatly strengthened by drawing in non-economic considerations such as cultural, social and religious reasons. For example, raising the standard of living may not overcome belief systems that value a woman by how many children she has or that encourage early marriages that lead to larger than average families.

Shouldn't we tackle the problem of overpopulation from a consumption perspective, given that ODCs are the ones that consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources and are the major polluters? This utilitarian ideal sounds great, but it's not realistic. The "Haves" will continue to consume more than their share because they can afford to do so. It's a basic economic tenet that the most relevant determinant of consumption is income. Certainly, a goal should be the wise use of resources and environmentally sound policies, but conservation alone can't solve the world's overpopulation problems. Further, it's entirely possible to consum less resources as is the case with UDCs, but to still generate a disproportionate amount of pollution and resource waste. Costlier environmental conservation may increasingly become the purview of ODCs that are in a better economic position to institute and follow conservation policies and regulations.

Isn't it immoral to take away procreation rights? The answer to this is obviously a highly subjective one. It's only fair to concede that this is a difficult decision that does place constraints on what ideally should be basic human rights. But, the immorality of continued overpopulation outweighs the negatives of enforcing birth control. In the case of overpopulation, individual rights come at the expense of society. Watching children starve to death because they don't have enough to eat or witnessing the impacts of global warming on our environment are more painful than telling people they can't have more children. And, taking away procreation rights isn't exactly a fair characterization of mandatory birth control. Couples would still be allowed to have some number of acceptable children, they just wouldn't be allowed to have more than they and the world's resources can support.

When considering the mandatory birth control issue, there is one final question that needs to be asked. What is the real alternative to this proposal? Ehrlich eloquently puts the answer to this question in black and white when he says, "Demographically, the whole problem is quite simple. A population will continue to grow as long as the birth rate exceeds the death rate-if immigration and migration are not occurring."

This implies that overpopulation must be controlled either on the birth side or the death side. As unappealing as forced birth control sounds, it's unarguable a better choice than mass extermination. A third option could be added, the development of technology that will eliminate the problems associated with overpopulation by increasing the world's food supply, producing alternatives to natural resources and limiting pollution caused by people and businesses. However, there are two problems with this proposition. First, there's the real danger demand for technology will continue to outpace its supply. Secondly, UDCs do not have the resources or financial backing to develop or purchase emerging technologies that will help them solve their problems. In time, technology may hold more promise, but the urgent nature of problems the world is facing call for solutions that are available today. Doing nothing and betting on the future is a risky strategy.