Science in Christian Perspective
"Fewer People for a Better Work!'
NEGATIVE POPULATION GROWTH: A PROPOSAL FOR ACTION*
Elizabeth Canfield
From: JASA 26
(March 1974): 13-15
*A reprint from the February 1973 Emko Newsletter, , Editor,
of the Negative Population Growth, Inc. Statement of Purpose and Program, NPG,
103 Park Ace., N.Y. 10007.
I. The Population Must Be Reduced to Not More Than One Half Present Levels
The best scientific opinion today tells us that this country, and every country
in the world, is already seriously overpopulated. Given two basic assumptions,
which the vast majority of people everywhere in the world will agree with, the
ease is overwhelming for the absolute necessity of reducing the
population drastically.
These two assumptions are as follows:
1. That it is desirable for an industrial society, with all its
benefits, to continue
to exist for more than just a few decades into the future.
2. That every child barn into this world should have the opportunity
to have enough
to eat, and to enjoy a decent standard of living.
In order for the above goals to be reached, it is clear that total
demand on the
earth's resources must be reduced. Otherwise, either environmental
pollution will
continue to bring about a drastic deterioration in the quality of life, and may
eventually destroy the earth's capacity to support life, or, on the other hand,
depletion of nonrenewable resources will reduce industrial production to a tiny
fraction of its present volume.
Zero population growth, even if it were realized immediately, is not
enough. Present
levels of industrial production are too high to be sustained for
long. Moreover,
zero population growth would not halt industrial growth, since per
capita consumption
is growing worldwide at an annual rate of around 4%. (Doubling about every 18
years.)
BILL OF RIGHTS Negative Population Growth We oppose every effort to
abridge these
inalien
able rights: |
In January 1972, thirty-three of Great Britain's most distinguished scientists
endorsed the basic principles of a study called "A Blueprint for
Survival",
which warned that demand for natural resources is becoming so great
that it will
exhaust reserves and inevitably cause "the breakdown of society
and the irreversible
destruction of the life-support systems on this planet, possibly by the end of
the century, certainly within the lifetimes of our children." They urged
Britain to stop building roads, to tax the use of power and raw materials, and
to cut her population in half. Negative Population Growth, Inc. is
the first American
population control organization to endorse this position.
Still another survival study came to the same basic conclusions. The study is
called "The Limits To Growth", and was produced by a team
of scientists
from MIT, and sponsored by the "Club of Rome". This study showed the
folly of any policies-whether population or-economic-which would result in an
increase in total demand on limited, and fast disappearing world resources.
Even more recently, a scientific panel, drawn from the National
Research Council
of the National Academy of Sciences, has urged that the U.S. begin limiting
its population and its consumption of resources. The panel said,
"It is clear
that the difficulties imposed by growing U.S. and world populations pervade all
other resource issues". The U.S. scientific panel also stated
that, "The
numbers of humans occupying that habitat, moreover, must be limited to numbers
it can comfortably sustain and their individual consumptions of materials must
be kept within supportable limits".
II. The Promise of a Better Life for All
As distinct from total demand, per capita demand must continue to increase, so
that all can share in a higher standard of living. The only possible
way to reconcile
these two seemingly contradictory imperatives-reduction of total demand on the
one hand, and the increase of per capita consumption on the other-is to reduce
the total population. There is no other way, either theoretical or practical.
A reduction in the population is not only essential to the well-being of future
generations, it is to the economic advantage of everyone now alive.
III. The One Child Family
The desirability and necessity of a substantial reduction in
population is beyond
dispute, once goals are set with a time horizon of more than just a few short
years in the future. How could such a reduction be accomplished?
By reducing the birth rate to below the death rate. This could be realized by
the one child maximum family, until such time as the population is reduced to
a suitable level, at which time the two child family would stabilize
it. We therefore
urge the one child family as the maximum family size, together with childfree
families for many couples. Even with the one child maximum family,
the population
would not begin to decline for twenty to thirty more years, because
of the disproportionate
number of young people in the total population at the present time.
Once the population
began declining, it would take another sixty or seventy years to
achieve a reduction
to a level not more than one half present levels.
Also, it is obvious that immigration, which accounts for about 20% of
population
growth in the U.S., must he severely limited.
IV. National Governments Must Create Major
Agencies to Deal Solely with Reducing the Population
The development of atomic energy and the reaching of the moon took place only
because major agencies were created solely for those purposes, told to achieve
those objectives as soon as humanly possible, and given the money and manpower
needed for the task. Action at least as bold and massive will be
required to reduce
the population, a task which presents problems more complex than those of the
atom or of space.
National legislative bodies must also create special committees on population
reduction. The responsibility for specific legislation to set up major agencies
and to accomplish the necessary reduction in population lies with the
Congress.
V. Individual Rights Versus the Common Good
Is the right to decide family size, irrespective of
the vital needs of society as a whole, a basic human right and a
fundamental freedom?
It is clear that there is a sharp conflict in the matter of family size between
the desires of individuals and the needs of society as a whole. It is
also clear
that this conflict must be resolved in favor of the common good, just
as all conflicts
are resolved, without a single exception, where the vital interests of society
as a whole are at stake, e.g., military service, taxes, laws against
crime, etc.
Moreover, in addition to conflicting with the vital needs of society
as a whole,
the individual right to decide family size conflicts with every other
basic human
right and freedom, and, if left unchecked, will eventually destroy
them, including
the right to privacy, to political liberty, the right to eat, and the right to
breathe.
It is obvious that controls will be necessary in order to effect the necessary
reduction in population. The form and extent of the controls must be decided by
Congress. They could vary from minimum and voluntary controls such as
government
guidelines to family size, at one end of the spectrum, to compulsory
birth control
at the other end, with compulsory sterilization after one child.
The middle ground between the two extremes would be tax and financial
incentives
making it to the financial advantage of couples not to have more than
one child,
together with, for example, laws raising the minimum age of marriage
considerably,
and making free abortion and sterilization available to all.
However, whatever Congress decides as to the form
of the necessary controls, it is essential that they be immediately effective
in getting the fob done, and the population reduced.
VI. Our Program and Purpose
Population control is the conscious regulation by society of total population
size. Several years ago the National Academy of Sciences established
a Committee
on Resources and Man. After two years of inquiry and study this
prestigious Committee
stated that, "Population control is the absolute primary essential without
which all other efforts are nullified."
Our purpose, broadly stated, is, through public education, to
encourage the United
States, and then every country in the entire world, to put into effect national
programs of population control, with the specific goal of a reduction
in population
to not more than one half present numbers. We shall strive to have
this national
goal adopted by the United States in 1976, the bicentennial of the founding of
our nation.
Furthermore, we intend to prove that a substantial reduction in population is
not only essential for the survival of a livable world, and the well-being of
future generations, but that it is in the economic self interest of
every person
now living. Accordingly, one of our principal tasks is to sponsor research in
order to develop a comprehensive economic theory covering a substantial decline
in population.
VII. A Desperate Urgency
Overpopulation is without question the most crucial problem facing
mankind today.
It is extremely urgent that bold and massive programs to reduce the population
be put into effect immediately. In the U.S., in spite of a decline in the birth
rate, which may be only temporary, our present population of 208,000,000 is
still growing by roughly 2,000,000 each year, and is doubling every
50 to 70 years.
The world population is now increasing at the
rate of one billion every ten years, (2% a year) and is doubling
every 35 years.
Now 3.8 billion, it is expected to reach 7 billion by the end of the
century.
Even today the vast numbers of people on this planet are pushing
against the outer
limits of the earth's ability to even feed them, much less to give
the vast majority
of mankind any hope of attaining a decent
standard of living. Even now over 50% of the earth's population lives
on the ragged
edge of starvation, enduring what Gandhi called "The Eternal
Famine".
If present trends are not reversed, and quickly, the result can only be human
misery and suffering on a scale never yet seen or imagined. In the face of such
overwhelming evidence, it is worse than irresponsible, it is sheer insanity to
delay any longer in taking decisive action. National programs of
population control
must be put into effect now!