Poles, Problems and A Middle Way?

As part of the Global Population Speak Out, NECSP board member Henry Barbaro wrote a letter to his hometown newspaper, the Jamaica Plain Gazette, laying out the basics of the population issues facing humanity at various scales (regionally, domestically and internationally).

Then, in response, a very good thing happened! Other local citizens found their voices and also submitted letters on the topic. And, wow! What amazingly different views the authors had. Scroll down to read two very different letters and tune in tomorrow to read Henry's response.

GOVT SHOULD NOT HAVE POPULATION CONTROL
In the March 20 edition of the JP Gazette, I read with interest the letter written by Henry Barbaro, board member of the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population, on the subject of population control. I welcome debate on this subject, as we should all be concerned about humanity consuming too many resources to maintain a reasonable standard of living and ecological health. It may be the case that, if we cannot stabilize our net environmental footprint, the only solution to this problem is population control. However, previous attempts at population control have had questionable effects on vulnerable populations.

Writing about the Irish potato famine in “The Great Calamity,” Christine Kinealy states the English gov-ernment used famine-related government policy to “…facilitate various long-desired changes within Ireland. These included population control and the consolidation of property…”

The US has also seen ethically dubious policy on this matter. In the 1927 decision Buck v. Bell, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of Dr. Bell to forcibly sterilize his mentally disabled patient Carrie Buck, because, in the opinion of Justice Holmes: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Birth control advocate Margaret Sanger argued in “Birth Control Review” (April 1932) for: “A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

General attitudes about humanity among population control theorists are also instructive. Caltech nuclear scientist Harrison Brown, in his 1954 book “The Challenge of Man’s Future,” states that the carrying capacity of the Earth is probably between 50 and 200 billion humans. However, he says this fact must be kept se-cret, as humanity is analogous to “a pulsating mass of maggots.” Therefore, according to Brown, humanity must not be allowed to “have its way” regarding population growth. In “The Population Bomb,” biologist Paul Ehrlich analogizes humans with cancer, and suggests compulsory birth regulation may be necessary.

In 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger produced National Security Study Memorandum 200, in which he concluded the US government must take an activist role in depopulating the developing world. Like Ehrlich, Kissinger goes on to suggest an alternate view that asks if “mandatory population control measures” are appropriate for the US and others.

I support a woman’s right to choose, and an individual’s right to access birth control, and therefore I think we must guard against ceding control of our reproductive rights to government in any form. Too often, population control efforts conclude with unacceptable policies that put the burden on the less fortunate. Therefore, I call on the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population to clearly state on its web site that it will never support any form of state-mandated, involuntary population reduction or control. Voluntary methods, such as access to birth control, raising income and education levels, raising literacy rates, etc., are acceptable, so long as they are done with the consent of the population in question.

GOVT SHOULD LIMIT LOWER CLASS PROCREATION
I couldn’t agree more with Henry Barbaro’s letter in the March 20 issue of the JP Gazette (“Population surge threatens the environment”), where he states: “addressing human overpopulation is critical to assuring human sustainability and security in the 21st century.”

I offer a slightly different perspective on population control than that offered in Mr. Barbaro’s letter. In the current era of economic cutbacks, layoffs and burgeoning costs for the care of the lower class, it is imperative we reexamine policy as to how best to ameliorate poverty. Spending on health and human services is the largest portion of the US government’s annual budget at just over $700 billion in Fiscal Year 2008 (www.federalbudget.com).

Throughout history, the poor have garnered much attention, perhaps epitomized by an infamous biblical quote: “The poor you shall always have with you...” (Matthew 26:11, New International Version). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent. In 2007, 37.3 million people were in poverty, up from 36.5 million in 2006.

One overlooked aspect of the policy debate over poverty is that of limiting lower-class procreation through social engineering in Iceland, during the mid 1800s, Gunnar Karlsson noted: “The only obvious way to reduce the expenses of poor relief in the future [is] to limit procreation. At this time, marriages were restricted in Iceland in the same way as in Denmark: those who had received poor relief as adults needed special permission from the communal authorities to enter marriage” (“The History of Iceland,” 2000, 231).

Bioethicist Onora O’Neill noted: “Direct coercion of procreative decisions would not be unjust. Such emergencies would arise only when recklessly fertile poor people persist in having children whose needs could not be met by their parents or by others, either by increasing or reallocating resources….Preventing such reckless procreation would coerce less than would failing to prevent it” (“Faces of Hunger,” 1986, 158).

Using census data to determine poverty rates, families in certain income ranges should be restricted to a certain number of children (or none). The current federally established poverty income level of $21,200 an-nually for a family of four should be redefined to a family of three (one child). Those who are unexpectedly brought into the ranks of the poor through job layoff, injury or illness should still be provided human services and support as is the current intent of entitlement programs. However, once in poverty, strict policies on procreating should be enforced in order to avoid “spreading” the low-income status. Economists would likely need to develop charts to determine how many low-income workers might be needed in any given year, based on the prior year’s economic trends and job needs (unemployment rate and other usual economic indices).

Limiting the procreative tendencies of the lower income classes would benefit the larger society through decreased economic, political and social costs, including a reduction in those crimes that are correlated to poverty.