A couple of days ago, while still thinking about what I should write in this post, I started reading a magazine. I won’t name it, but I’ll say that something about the magazine in question made me send them an e-mail wondering about the way in which controversial issues are approached. In turn, that made me make a mental connection with the certainly controversial issue of overpopulation, so I ended up also mentioning Global Population Speak Out and the issue in general. Rather unexpectedly, the person who replied agreed that it is an issue of vital importance and even said he believes the world as we know it might end due to overpopulation even sooner than predicted in the 1970s. He added that he would really want to publish a loud call to action and likely call that article “The End of the World”, but only a person of the highest authority would be able to say something like that and weather the ensuing storm and he’s not that person, so he’s still looking for one who is and would be willing to take that risk.
This would likely seem significantly more important if I’d say who it is I’m talking about, but I don’t think I should. I offered this introduction both to point out that people really are afraid to speak out about overpopulation and to explain the title of this post. I picked this title because, when he said he’d title his article “The End of the World”, I found myself suggesting that “Suffocating the World” would be better, because that’s exactly what the sheer number of people is doing. And since that thought stuck in my mind, I’m using it.
As you might now, I firmly believe that human overpopulation is the worst problem the world is facing. I mention it often enough, though posts actually dedicated to the issue are few and far between, mainly because it’s so important and I think about it so much that I fear I won’t do it justice if I’d write something, that what I’m able to do just isn’t good enough.
But I highly doubt everyone else stays silent for the same reason. Some think about it a lot but are afraid to speak out, fearing the reaction. Others occasionally consider the issue, but then dismiss it. The reasons for this might include that same fear I just mentioned, a sense of wasting their time on a problem which will never be solved, religious beliefs, being crushed by society’s pressure to the point of submitting even their thoughts to its norms, or simply allowing their own instincts and selfish desires to override their reasoning. Yet these are still people we could work with, people who could be persuaded to think about it more and then act. The others, however, the vast majority who are unwilling or truly unable to think about the big picture and act for the good of all, need to be forced to stop breeding by any means necessary.
Education and an improved standard of living may sound nice as measures to eventually reduce population, but most people do not think, or if they do think it’s only about themselves and maybe, at most, a few loved ones. They don’t care about the planet, the other species we share it with or even other fellow humans. You can’t give them the facts and expect them to make the right decision. Or you could, of course, but the joke would be on you because they wouldn’t.
I’m not saying it’ll always be impossible to make people stop having children through education alone, I certainly hope someday we’ll “wake up”, but you can’t do it now and we can’t wait. Earth can’t wait. Earth also couldn’t even bear the current population if we were to raise everyone’s standard of living to the level of Western European countries in hopes of that resulting in similarly low birth rates everywhere. Drastically reducing the population is a prerequisite of increasing the standard of living, it just won’t work the other way around.
But since I mentioned the low birthrates in Western European countries, there is something I want to point out. It’s true that better education and a higher standard of living have a significant influence, but culture might have an even greater one. What’s more, possibly the greatest influence comes from the hectic pace of life and the fact that it’s simply inconvenient to have children in such a society. In a way, it’s still coercion, just a different kind of it and likely unintentional. But in an ideal society life would have a leisurely pace, people would enjoy a lot of free time and be able to put their real interests and skills to use, do what they want and like to do, while working. And since I have to hope we’ll reach that point soon enough, we shouldn’t promote this state of affairs even more now. We’ll also need ways to ensure that the birthrates are going to stay low even after achieving such a state.
Also, I have to stress that overpopulation is everyone’s problem. No country is a little island floating through space, so no country can say they don’t have this problem because the fertility rate of its citizens is below replacement level. Frankly, considering how much the current population needs to drop, none is anywhere near low enough, but the main reason is another. We are not Canadian, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Bolivian or Ethiopian who live in our respective countries! We’re all humans who live on Earth! Or, if I may take it further and eliminate the word “humans” as well, we are all beings experiencing a physical life through the use of bodies capable of memorizing observations and experiences and, hopefully, learning from them, just like quite a large number of other species on this planet. How about we start focusing on what brings us together instead of what sets us apart?
But enough with what won’t work. I’d better get to what I think would work, and that is a very strict population policy at the highest level. There need to be absolutely draconian laws when it comes to the right to breed and they need to be enforced in the same way everywhere. Countries should only be allowed to set their own rules if they’re stricter than the “generic” ones. There could be some leniency in case of extreme catastrophes which would cause the death of most of a country’s citizens in a relatively short amount of time, but hopefully that will never be the case. On top of this, the world certainly needs similarly enforced “right to die” laws, ensuring that people who desire to be euthanized will have their wish granted.
I think that any population above three billion is dangerously high, and also that one between two and three billion is undesirable at best, though I’m willing to set the initial target in between those two numbers, namely at two and a half billion. Since it’s better to have stages for every process, I’ll say that the issue of overpopulation should constantly be the world’s top priority, regardless of anything else, until the population will drop below five billion. This will be stage one. Stage two will start when we’ll be less than five billion and end when we’ll be less than four billion. During this stage, overpopulation should still generally be the world’s top priority, but other critical issues could take precedence for a limited amount of time and in clearly defined areas. Stage three, between three and four billion, should still find overpopulation at the top of the world’s agenda, but other very important issues could also get a relatively similar level of attention. During stage four, between two and a half and three billion, we could relax the global policies and start localizing the problem, focusing on the areas where things are still not right and perhaps even allowing the current population levels to be maintained in areas where people would already be few and “green” enough to live in real harmony with the environment. And stage five, once we’ll be less than two and a half billion, would theoretically allow for the population to stabilize, though a slow drop would still be desirable and measures would still be in place to determine how many children each can have, according to the qualities they could pass on to them. Keep these stages in mind, I’ll mention them later.
When it comes to the right to breed, there should certainly be a license. You need a license to drive a car or to own a weapon, but anyone with a functional reproductive system can freely perform the one action which has the highest potential to harm the entire world, namely having a child. That can’t be right! Therefore, there must be very thorough tests that anyone who wants to have a child would need to take, with only the best obtaining the right.
This is where things get tricky (and also where this post will likely become hard to follow), because it’s very hard to get those tests right, to avoid any kind of leniency but also to steer clear of the abuses which have been performed in the past under the name of population control or improvement. Very exact studies will be required and extremely competent people will need to be selected to give the “verdicts”. There will also need to be very harsh punishments for anybody trying to abuse the system in any way. The critera will have to be very specific and machines should be used as much as possible for the “measurements”, as long as their accuracy can be guaranteed, to avoid subjectivity. The tests would also need to focus strictly on a person’s natural abilities, not on what they might have learned. But all of this is possible, if we’d only want to get to that point.
First there will be a test for any disease which could be passed on to a future child directly. No person suffering from such an illness will be allowed to have a child before being completely cured. Then the family history (or the DNA directly, if possible) will be carefully analyzed to determine the risk of harmful malformations or predispositions to disease which could be passed on to the potential future child. People who show a significant risk will be rejected, at least until there will be effective means of eliminating said risk. This part of the test will be repeated each time a couple desires to have a child, and the license granted after passing it will only be valid for a short amount of time.
Then there should be a list of all the desirable traits, both mental and physical (but not aesthetic, at least not before stage three), which can be determined by genetics. I’m talking about things such as photographic memory, logical thinking, ease in learning new languages, strength, stamina or dexterity. Couples who desire to have children will have to be tested for all of these traits. Each couple will only go through this test at most once per stage, though a person could certainly be tested multiple times if they have multiple partners. The number of children a couple is allowed to have as a result of this test will remain fixed for the duration of the current stage as long as both partners are still young enough. Considering the algorithm I’ll explain next, this means that the situation will even out over time, with the drop in population being more significant at the start of a stage than further on, which seems like a very good thing. Also, couples who do not desire to have all the children they would be allowed to have would just speed up solving the problem.
Moving on, the number five should be divided by the total number of the above-mentioned traits and the result will indicate the percentage of couples that will be automatically placed in the top category based on that trait alone. Further, the number of yearly births required to keep the population constant will be estimated and the above-mentioned percentage used to determine the exact number couples which would be placed in that category based on each trait. I’ll give an example later on… And yes, that means that a couple without a significant risk of disease or malformations will be able to have children if they score extremely high in any one of these categories, regardless of the overall score. But that score will matter too, and after the first stage it will become more important, because the couples which would score highly in multiple traits will be granted the right to have the same number of children as those who scored highly in a single trait, meaning that some “slots” will be left over. Those will be filled by those who had the highest overall score. In addition, since the percentage of couples which would be allowed to have children will increase as we advance through the stages but the percentage of “slots” reserved for those who score extremely highly in any one trait will stay the same, after the first stage there will be more and more “slots” for those with high overall scores.
I’m quite aware that such a system would generate “arrangements” in cases where one person might be suitable to have a child, but the couple they make with their partner would not be. Since the purpose of the tests is to determine who has children and not who raises them, such “arrangements” would be irrelevant. Raising children is a completely different issue and it has little to do with managing population growth, so that’s a rant for another time.
I know that the system is far from perfect and that I’m also quite bad at explaining things, but this is what I could do to summarize the idea right now. And if I were to add the most important specifics, I’d say those would be the exact algorithms used in each stage. During stage one, only the top category would be allowed to have children, two for each couple, and the number of couples who’d get the license would be equal to 5% of the number of births which would be required to maintain a constant population, resulting in a maximum number of births equal to 10% of that number. During stage two, the top category would be unchanged, but a second category, made up of a number of couples equal to 15% of the required number of births, would be allowed to have one child each, resulting in a maximum number of births equal to 25% of the requirement. In stage three, the top category, unchanged in number, would be allowed to have three children, the second category would be allowed to have two children and be made up of a number of couples equal to 10% of the required number of births, while the specifics of stage two’s second category would become those of stage three’s third, resulting in a maximum number of births equal to 50% of the requirement. In stage four, the top category, unchanged in number of births allowed, would be made up of a number of couples equal to 10% of the required number of births, the second category, unchanged in number of births allowed, would be made up of a number of couples equal to 15% of the required number of births, while the third category would be unchanged. And in stage five, the top category, unchanged in number of births allowed, would be made up of a number of couples equal to 15% of the required number of births, the second category, unchanged in number of births allowed, would be made up of a number of couples equal to 20% of the required number of births, while the third category would be unchanged.
Since that probably sounds even more confusing than it is, I should give a simple example. Consider that the number of yearly births required to keep the population constant would be 100 million and that the number of tested traits is 20. That means that each trait would theoretically place 250 thousand couples in the first category because they scored extremely highly in it, though the real number would be lower due to overlapping. If this would happen in the first stage, during that year’s testing, five million couples would receive the right to have two children. In stage two, five million would be able to have two children while another 15 million would be able to have one. In stage three, five million would be able to have three, ten million would be able to have two and 15 million would be able to have one. In stage four, ten million would be able to have three, 15 million would be able to have two and another 15 million would be able to have one. In stage five, 15 million would be able to have three, 20 million would be able to have two and 15 million would be able to have one. As I said, theoretically stage five would allow for the population to be maintained, but I would still hope for some drop thanks to those who would not want to have all the children they’d be allowed to have.
All of this takes a very simple situation into account, one which is unlikely to be found in reality, but I think this is complicated (and long) enough already, so all the other details are better left for another time. One thing I should mention, however, is that multiple births which would cause a couple to go over their allowed number of children would naturally not be counted against them, but fertility treatments which might cause more than twins would be severely frowned upon and perhaps even forbidden.
As for what happens if you don’t follow the proper procedures, let’s just say that there would have to be absolutely no mercy. Safe and effective birth control would be free and abortions would also be provided free of charge in case of accidental pregnancies, so there would be no excuse to carry an illegal pregnancy to term, or at least past the point where abortion would become a problem. Abortions would be mandatory for illegal pregnancies or cases where medical tests would reveal health problems or defects of the fetus. However, to avoid cases where people use abortion as a contraceptive method, a person who has more than two abortions in two years, more than three in five or more than five total, regardless of reason, will be permanently sterilized, since it can be considered that they can’t be trusted to take care of their own body. Otherwise, as I said, people who try to dodge the law and carry an illegal pregnancy to term will be punished most severely, especially if the situation would be discovered after an abortion would no longer be safe.
After such a long and complicated rant about one, and certainly the most important, part of my solution to the problem, I just want to briefly outline the other measure I mentioned previously, namely the “right to die” laws. Actually, I firmly support this simply because it should be a basic human right. You should have the right to die if you want to just like you have the right to live. It could also be considered to be a compensation, since nobody’s asking you if you want to be born before you are, so people should at least get to choose the time and manner of their death, if at all possible! Either way, the fact that it would also help solve the issue of overpopulation is just an added bonus.
The way this should work is very simple. Anyone who desires to die, for any reason or even for no particular reason, should be able to go to a doctor and ask for the procedure to be performed on them. Some counseling might be a good idea, but only to determine that the patient is aware of the finality of their gesture, not to try to change their mind or even to discuss their reasons. Exceptions would be people who have others under their direct care, such as children or even pets, and do not suffer from an incurable and deadly illness. Those shouldn’t be given the right to die until they have made proper arrangements for those who depend on them.
Some basic means of providing this service without causing pain or suffering should be offered by regular hospitals, while people who want to die in a specific manner could go to specialized clinics which would be permitted to do anything the patient asks them to, as long as a clear statement in which the patient expresses his or her wishes is written and signed beforehand.
People who attempt suicide should also no longer be considered insane or forced into treatment, as it can happen now. It should be admitted that it is their life and their right to take it if they so choose. If such an attempt fails but the doctor who arrives at the scene finds clear evidence that the patient truly desired to die, they might even finish the job for them. However, any suicide attempt which could endanger others would still be a very serious crime and, if the attempt fails, the culprit should receive proper punishment before being finally allowed to die, if he or she would still desire to at that time.
In addition to this, medicine should focus on improving the existing lifespan instead of prolonging old age. That way, people would be healthier, happier and more active for a larger percentage of their lives, therefore partially solving the “aging population” problem without needing a large number of births. I keep saying that I for one would much rather live 50 or 60 healthy years and then just drop dead, possibly because I chose to, than make it to 100 but struggle with various ailments since 30.
This should certainly also be extended to patients in a vegetative state with no chance of recovery, where the recommendation should be to “pull the plug” after offering their friends and family a reasonable amount of time to get used to the idea. However, as long as the person who has the legal right to make this call, usually a spouse or other similarly close relative, doesn’t make it, the patient would obviously have to be provided with the best care possible. The doctors should gently recommend allowing the patient to die after a certain amount of time, but they should also accept any decision made by those who have the legal right to make it and not pressure further.
As I kept saying throughout this post, there are many more details I could have added, but this is long and complicated enough as it is. I guess this is what happens when a twisted mind tries to explain what it’s been seriously considering for at least eight years, possibly more, though my ideas have only had this general form for the past five or so of those years and are constantly being refined.
This is why I so rarely write about this issue in depth, because there’s no way to say everything I’d want to, have a very hard time choosing what to put in and what to leave out and in the end I’m unhappy with the result either way. The issue is too important and I’ve worked on it for too long to do it justice with my flimsy writing skills…
Still, I hope this wasn’t quite so bad and that anyone who managed to make it this far reading it has less of a headache than I now have after writing it. I’d also hope that at least a couple of people are going to be touched by it in some way, at some point, and that it might do at least a little bit to help the cause… But that’d be too much to ask…
