In view of the current foofaraw (thank you Lady Lisa) centering around the birth of implanted octuplets to a California woman who already had given birth to six other in vitro children, I thought the following piece would be apropos for this week's R.S.. It previously appeared here on April 8, 2007 (and in expanded form in Chapter Five of LIFE, DEATH AND OTHER TRIVIA).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As promised, following is a possible solution to the problems outlined in yesterday's article. (NB: The aforementioned article discussed the wave of ignorance and indifference that has led, among other disasters, to the explosion of teenage pregnancy and unwanted children worldwide). And before you start gasping and accusing me of advocating genetic engineering or interfering with reproductive freedom, please understand that the following suggestions bear absolutely no resemblance to Hitler-style eugenics or "ethnic cleansing". This plan is an entirely benign effort to keep the planet from being destroyed by too many humans with too little sense, and too few resources to support them. I have reviewed and considered all possible objections, but honestly believe that the benefits of this program would so far outweigh any negative aspects as to make them hardly worth mentioning. So here it is:
At age 12, every child on earth, both male and female, receives a harmless substance that renders them sterile for an indeterminate period of time. This contraception can be reversed, but only twice in each lifetime, and only under the following conditions:
1) Both prospective parents must be at least 25 years of age and gainfully employed.
2) The couple must have been in a committed relationship for a minimum of two years and must mutually desire a child before pregnancy is permitted.
3) Both must take extensive parenting classes and pass stringent physical, emotional and ethical exams before receiving a license to reproduce.
4) Inadequate finances, criminal behavior, addictions to dangerous substances, or the presence of any STD prohibits granting of a license.
5) The contraceptive process will be reinstated after the first birth, and may be removed just once more, any time after the child’s first birthday.
6) Immediately after the second child is born, both parents are permanently sterilized. Some exceptions may be negotiated, in the event of miscarriage or early death, but for the most part, that’s it: two kids per couple, straight or gay. Period.
Do I have to point out the enormous advantages? Try these:
· No more exploding population.
· No more famine.
· No more unwanted children.
· No more abortions.
· No more teenage parents.
· No more single-parent families.
· No more screwed-up kids who become screwed-up, often criminal, adults.
· A substantial reduction in the number of failed marriages.
· The eventual elimination of sexually transmitted diseases
· A significant drop in the crime rate.
· And, best of all, a peaceful, quiet world, full of happy, well-fed, well-behaved children with well-educated, happy, well-adjusted parents. Can it get any better than that?
Admittedly, the left-wing liberal part of me objects to the abrogation of some of the personal liberties outlined in this plan. Nevertheless, when I step back and look at the bigger picture, it becomes clear that the sacrifice of individual options for the betterment of society as a whole is more to be desired than denigrated. So far, allowing ignorance to take precedence over social responsibility hasn’t worked out very well. Perhaps it is time for a change of outlook. Maybe containing the numbers of humans on the planet is more important than maintaining man’s “right” to reproduce without restraint.
I recognize that there could be some negative fallout. Jerry Springer and Dr. Phil would have to find new lines of work, the Vatican would implode, the ACLU would become permanently apoplectic, and half the trailer parks in America would disappear. But honestly, would anyone really miss them? And even if these icons were to vanish from the scene, isn’t that a small enough price to pay for Utopia?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
I am not going to express a moral or social stance on this matter. I sincerely hope there will be some help around to look after the needs of 8 tiny beings plus the current six. Mum and dad might need some advice.
Population control, birth control education in developing countries was a priority until the Regan years.
If anyone has any doubts that the Capitalists have been running things, not just in the U.S., but world wide, look at how quickly these programs are killed when Republicans are in office.
Capitalism MUST have not only a constantly expanding market, it must also have constantly expanding, very poor, very easy to manipulate (uneducated) work force to supply the cheapest labor possible.
In the U.S. this need fit very nicely with our religious fundamentalists, as it does in any nation with religious control of the population. The capitalists and religious /oppressors are perfect partners. However in the U.S. population growth slowed to such a level that to gain cheap labor the border to Mexico had to be softened, it was. The U.S. also accepted large refugee groups.
I don't think official measures have to be taken, education and a rising standard of living works nearly as well. Social / Cultural responses work also.
I do agree that world population, slowing a few decads ago is now exploding again, and as always it is in nations where the population is controlled by religious leaders.
In the U.S., the largest families are in our most recent immigrants populations. Contrary to popular belief, they are not primarily from Mexico, but are refugee communities from many nations.
We do have to push for slowing the population explosion.
Our planet is weeping.
The natural result of over-population is alway war, war to gain control of the resources and the people used to claim them, and reshape them into products.
War is an excellent way to centralize power and gain control over a nation's people, very useful for the group in power.
Part of me cringes at the thought of such draconian control over people's lives. China is doing something similar, of course, although their restrictions are "voluntary." If you exceed the one-child quota, you will probably lose your job, but they don't throw you in jail. Farmers are mostly excepted from the rule because they need kids to help in the fields.
But my aversion is overcome when I think of the earth's population...six-and-a-half billion and growing. What is the earth's "sustainable" population? Depends on how you define it, but the consensus seems to be between 1 and 2 billion. A Helluva lot of people will have to die to get down to that level, and most of them will not die pleasantly...war, starvation and the rapid spread of diseases in a densely-populated urban society.
Even draconian population control such as you propose, seems preferable.
ten4u anyway.