Shades of Grey
Shades of Grey Shades of Grey Shades of Grey

  Hi there.

In My Head
Main Page
My House Blog
My Flickr Photos


Daily Reads
Questionable Content
XKCD
Penny Arcade
Saturday Morning
A Softer World
Least I Could Do
Misfile
Sinfest
Overheard
One Sentence

FMyLife

 

www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Greyson76 tagged with badge. Make your own badge here.

Archives
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009

vertline1.jpg (1730 bytes)


Friday, January 30

Inheritance

News articles like this one tend to engender strong, and polarized, emotions in people. A good portion (perhaps the majority) will react with "Awwwww" and a warm tingle at the heart-warming story that's destined for the Lifetime movie-of-the-week. Others, including me, blanch involuntarily (and not just because the mother claims it was a "miracle," despite voluntarily using science-based fertility treatments).

There are arguments that can be made against having excessively large families on the personal level (the distribution of resources, including attention, among more children, the greater risk to each child from gestating multiples, etc.), but these tend to be visceral and opinion-based. Moving on.

The concept of personal liberty and reproductive freedom is unquestionable on the personal level. The concept of responsibility on the global scale, on the other hand, is not. For 99% of its 200,000-year history, the human species experienced very slow population growth (we didn't crack 5 million people until the Bronze Age). A hunter-gatherer existence surrounded by predators and an inconsistent food supply meant that multiple offspring were offset by high mortality rates, and even into the modern historical periods population growth was still slow (800 million people worldwide in 1750, less than the population of India today). The evolutionary nudge toward large families was maintained as necessity in agrarian societies (where large numbers of children were, in addition to bundles of joy, free labor on farms using hand-powered technology), and extended into tradition today even when no longer necessary (my own family, descended from proud farming stock on both sides, spans four generations and more than 50 people, not counting spouses).

This is where harsh mathematics comes in. The current population of the world is about 6.75 billion. This is a fourfold increase in a hundred years and nearly a doubling since I was born. Numbers are projected to level out around 9 billion once the majority of the third world "catches up" with the first world. In stark contrast, the scientific consensus on the maximum long-term sustainable population of the planet, based on its resources and "recharge rate," is a paltry 2 billion, a number we've long ago passed. That number is based on an assortment of limiting factors, such as the rate aquifers recharge, top soil regenerates and ocean fish levels replenish, plus the rate of depletion of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels that are a one-shot supply the planet won't produce again. Our current population is sustaining itself only through depleting a stockpile of resources (much like spending the capital in your retirement fund instead of living off the interest). This is a bad plan (both in the world of finance and in population dynamics).

The human species, then, has three options:

1. Ignore the situation and allow the population to build to 10+ billion, at which point natural population control measures will kick in (in a decidedly non-pretty way, likely through escalating mass famines and regional/global wars over limited resources).

2. Institute mandatory population control measures as China and India have done (with varying degrees of success). These are severe violations of personal liberty and lead to civil unrest.

3. Encourage global responsibility on a personal level. Which means not having 14 children. (It actually means not having more children than necessary to maintain the sustainable population, which in a balanced ecology would be enough to replace the previous generation.)

Unpleasant facts, I know. Our planet just isn't as forgiving as we tend to think it is.

Labels: , , ,