Tap here to turn on desktop notifications to get the news sent straight to you.
PP, so what are you suggesting? I welcome your creative solution for getting rid of old people. Joking aside, I do agree that, in addition to providing reliable birth control to anyone who wants it, we need to focus on poverty, greed, xenophobia and exploitation in all its forms, as well as more specifically on education and healthcare.
This will ensure that all children, even poor and dark-skinned ones, grow up to contribute to society rather than take away from it. As soon as you start seeing people as a problem, you begin choosing winners and losers, wanted and unwanted, and people are treated as means to an end.
And there is reliable NON-artificial birth control that costs practically nothing and has no side effects: But it requires education and respect for women. And population controllers are too impatient and disrespectful to the dignity of the women they want to control to focus on such a method.
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is about population control, among other things, and no one in that society grows old. I think the cutoff in that book is 60, though. And I have vague memories of a movie when you could either commit suicide after a big party with your family, or be hunted down and executed before you could become a burden on society.
I do not want to get rid of old people. I was trying to illustrate the problem with the utilitarian mindset that permeates population control measures. Young people can work and contribute. I disagree that the solution to our problem lies with eliminating people of any age, race, or locale.
I think that is a fatalistic and frightening mentality, where people become a problem, like a virus, subhuman.
But the "choir" of feel-good population controllers are not capable of thinking outside of their box, even as the United Nations and journalists and public policy experts and demographers all around the world acknowledge that almost half of the world is in a population DECLINE.
So reductionist and simple, requiring much less effort than addressing greed and exploitation and the denigration of women.
A PP mentioned child brides. What do you get if you manage to sterilize a child bride? You still have a child bride, abused and disrespected by the men around her. Thinking people are the problem is the problem with population control. Are you seriously making this claim about Huxley?
You could not be more wrong. Read his essay "Brave New World Revisited", in which he directly discusses population control. Here is what Huxley actually said:Lack of access to abortion leaves women in poverty Continuing to limit access to birth control would wreak economic havoc.
and so stifling solutions. In essence, one of the major. The Birth Control Solution By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF November 2, What if there were a solution to many of the global problems that confront us, from climate change to poverty to civil wars? For that to happen, birth control is essential.
When birth control is unavailable, poverty becomes cyclical. Impoverished women are less able to choose when and how many children they have. Oftentimes, those children are raised in poverty, and will grow to experience similar disparities. Malthus, a devout Christian, believed that "self-control" (abstinence) was preferable to artificial birth control.
In some editions of his essay, Malthus did allow that abstinence was unlikely to be effective on a wide scale, thus advocating the use of artificial means of birth control as a solution . It means they give birth alongside a partner they can count on.
By contrast, low-income women already have limited access to abortion and birth control, but their marital outcomes are far worse. Poor women in their 20s are more than three times as likely to experience an unintended pregnancy than high-income women.
However, there is absolutely no relationship between high populations, disaster, and poverty. Population-control advocates might consider the Democratic Republic of Congo’s meager 75 people per square mile to be ideal while Hong Kong’s 6, people per square mile is problematic.