Aug 17 2011
Global population numbers having just passed the 7 billion mark (twice what it was when I opened a vasectomy clinic in Texas), it is overwhelming to contemplate the world struggling with this flood and its inevitable threats (including starvation, drought, pollution — and what leading scientists predicted long ago would be the main danger to civilization: war).
Unless we act (this legislation, along with China’s “one child” policy, is a start), the world is doomed to strangle among coils of pitiless exponential growth.
Norman Fleishman / Yountville
As much as I dislike hearing that women ought to have children for the sake of their country, I also dislike hearing that women ought not have children for the sake of their country. Both statements treat women as commodities, and both are false claims.
For a start, Germany just announced that Europe still doesn’t have “enough children for the future”. So while Europe and the developed world don’t have enough children to support economic growth and therefor no one suggests that these countries and wealthier demographics are overpopulated, it seems that overpopulation is an issue for “those” countries and “those” classes.
To use overpopulation as a ridiculous claim that women shouldn’t be having that many children and it needs legislating, really seems to be saying that certain women shouldn’t be having children, women who might use resources, women who might already live in a populated country.
But if overpopulation isn’t a global issue, then is it really an issue at all?