Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

People’s need to reproduce leads to overpopulation

Published: Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 02:11

sdf

Beth Mendenhall

As college-educated Americans, we have our hands on the levers of power and change more so than almost any other group on the planet. We have incredible access to information, all avenues of democratic participation and our entire lives ahead of us.

That's why it's imperative we shun a myopic focus on local happenings and recognize global issues are important and desperately need our attention. Serious threats to global peace, and possibly the existence of the human race, are real. They include resource depletion, ecological contamination, the threat of great power conflict, endemic poverty, failed states, famine, disease and economic exploitation.

Ironically, all of these global problems have a single, profoundly local solution: We must have fewer children.

It's not difficult to see most of our more pressing problems are caused, or at least compounded by, overpopulation. Questions of carrying capacity aside, its clear our economic and political systems are not effectively providing for the almost seven billion people on the planet. The United Nations estimates the human population will reach eight to 10 billion by 2050. More people means greater consumption of resources, many of which are either finite or being produced unsustainably.

Potable water is an especially critical resource, and one to which access is increasingly restricted by pollution, overuse and capitalism. Disease is frequently caused by overcrowded, unsanitary living conditions. Famine and poverty are exacerbated by too many people fighting for too few jobs and too little food.

These problems are easy for us to ignore, as we presently remain largely immune to their effects. We ignore that industrialized nations like ours have only been able to maintain materialistic lifestyles because they have the economic and military power to consume a disproportionate share of global resources. This reality, however, only reaffirms our responsibility to address overpopulation.

There are two steps to addressing overpopulation: rejecting the idea we all have an obligation to procreate and increasing access to contraception globally. It's possible the persistence of the pro-proliferation, anti-contraception mindset is explained by adherence to Catholic doctrine, though I will only note correlation here.

It's undeniable we have an instinct to reproduce. Instincts are not a trump card, however, as we already insist on restraint when following them would cause violence. We ought not remain trapped in the "must pass on my genes" mentality. Alternative family structures have sufficiently proven sharing genetic information isn't necessary for a loving family environment. It is a profoundly selfish act to bring multiple new mouths to feed into the world when so many are currently starving. It also seems unlikely a loving God would want us to reproduce beyond our capacity to maintain the beautiful world he created.

The argument that more children create a better family dynamic and promote healthier development of each child is a good one, but fully addressed by utilizing extended family relationships.

To be clear: I am not advocating government restrictions on reproduction. I only deny we have an unalienable right or obligation to reproduce. The choice is ours. We ought to make it responsibly.

We've no time for naiveté – sex is inevitable. That's why access to contraception is critical to confronting overpopulation. The UN estimates 200 million women worldwide do not have any access to contraception. It's even hard to get it as a teenager in the U.S. – my grocery store back home keeps the condoms behind a locked cabinet. Reproductive education is also critical.

The global birthrate is unsustainable, and will cause resource conflict sooner than you think (as in now). We have an obligation to recognize and address overpopulation, both to protect the world for future generations and reduce resource pressures on those here already. The best option is adoption as there are thousands of children already born who need the love of a parent. The least we can do is demand better access to reproductive education and contraceptives here in the U.S. and advocate for it globally with our voices and our dollars.

But please, cease breeding like rabbits, and recognize we have a moral responsibility to have only one to two children each.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

41 comments

Of a rather bemusing sortie party off the cost of a Belgian quay
Sun Feb 7 2010 00:26
Beth, your points are valid. But my liver cringes juuust a bit when I here affluent- developed- world-westerners (I'm one of them) declare 21st century Kipling-esque The Rich Man's Burden to all poor developing country citizens. We, as a developed country possess a disproportionate slice of resources. Developing countries (like India) really do breed like rabbits. But children are so embedded in their culture/religion. + what about the parents? There's no 401k and hey, why not have 8 kids do the labor, then take care of use when we're old?
Brian
Sun Dec 13 2009 22:28
The hard fact for a lot of people to swallow is that human population has increased alongside increases in food production. What this means is that our population will continue increasing if we continue this never ending belief that we need to increase food production. Oh what about the starving people in less developed countries you may ask? Well, ironically these countries boast the fastest growing populations in the world. Starving people can make even more starving people. They are starving for a number of reasons but it doesnt have to do with world food production not being enough for every single person to meet his calorie needs.
Beth, contraceptives and a cultural liking to small families can and will help but I think you're missing the underlying reason for overpopulation.
ku still sux
Thu Dec 10 2009 16:55
ku sux and always will...just sayin'.
Joe
Thu Dec 10 2009 16:52
Beth:
You are SUCH a tool. You keep those views of yours and see how far you get in life. You will have two choices in life...teach at a university or mainstream media. Fail at either of those two and you will grow old a very lonely woman.
Your name
Thu Dec 3 2009 14:53
From an ecological perspective, Beth has really hit a central and growing issue in our society today. Many studies show that the human population is continually growing, especially in the U.S. This growth is inherently bad for reasons mentioned in the article: Water supply decrease, pollution, limited resources. There is much scientific evidence to back all of these claims and show that if rates of growth continue as they are today, we will face the consequences in the near future. These are not opinions, they are facts that can be checked, all you have to do is go to web of science through the library and look up the scientific studies. Than again, people only accept certain scientific facts when they meet their need (such as medical science) and refuse to accept scientific evidence when it comes to something they disagree with (evolution perhaps). When we run out of water though and major wars break out, I believe the population will view scientific evidence differently.
Bill
Fri Nov 27 2009 22:44
Don't worry about over-population, the Catholic Church, the need for more lactating rooms, or even global warming. The single biggest problem facing this country is our out of control debt. In the time it takes to read this short post the US will have spent another $2 million. Right now, our debt stands at $12 trillion...which rivals our GDP. We need to balance the budget immediately. The longer we wait the worse it will get. Time is not on our side. Want to see something really scary? Google "National Debt Clock." Educate yourself on the problem and demand real financial change from our politicians.
Your name
Mon Nov 23 2009 20:45
Baby Boom-
I don't see how you draw the false conclusion that I believe everything the media tells me. Quite the opposite! I spoke from my own observations. How did you get that idea from what I said? Still, I agree with you about Beth's articles.
She gives no credit to the Catholic Church for striving to preserve the natural order of reproduction and condemning all that is detrimental to the continuation of human life! It's typical for liberals like Beth to confuse reasonable arguments with harsh uncalled for insults. I hope Beth is thankful her own mother didn't decided to use her "right" to abortion or decide to use a condom.
Mike
Sat Nov 21 2009 19:43
Today, more people are living in abject poverty than the world's total population in 1950. About 20 million impoverished children die each year, mostly from causes that are preventable. Many of the resurces in the poorest parts of the world are consumed by those living in affluent countries. According to the World Bank, 59% of all the worlds private consuption is afforded the richest 10%. That richest 10% includes those living at the poverty line in wealthy countries. The US Census recently projected a US population increase from today's 305 million to 439 million by 2050. Wealthy consumers in the US, Canada, UK are increasing dependent on the rest of the world for cheap natural and human resources. Close to 400 million children are forced to work for little, if any, income. Inpoverished peole are moving to slums where the population is projected by the UN to increase from today's 1,000 million to 2,000 million by 2050. In my opinion, all this population growth will never reach the projections. But it will end, just as growth is slowing today, with more and more people suffering to a senseless and needless death because the growth . The meger reductions in under 5 child mortality are unlikely sustainable as the rich fight desperately to maintain their comfortable lifestyles. That fight will be won by those most responcible for all the resource confilicts and millitarized gorernments of peoples without compassion, like us,
Apathy sucks
Fri Nov 20 2009 21:45
Ms. Mendenhall,

I am interested in the idea that over-consumption rather than over-population is the more critical problem (although I am aware both are linked). Couldn't Americans work to consume less in order to prevent immediate onset/further proliferation of the problems you mentioned? All the American families I know with 6+ children conserve way more than the American upper middle-class 2 child families I know (think hand-me-down clothes, shared bedrooms, shared cars, etc.). I agree that population needs to be addressed as well. But, the world cannot support ever 2 billion people who live like the average American. Just a thought.

Tigerpaw
Fri Nov 20 2009 20:05
I find it interesting that people who can not stand your articles keep reading them. Obviously you draw
people in......they keep criticizing you.....but they keep coming back to read the next week's article.
Keep it up. I may not agree with everything you write in your articles but I enjoy reading them.
Beth smells like Pee
Fri Nov 20 2009 10:33
Ku will nat'l champs in basketball this year....just sayin
silverionmox
Thu Nov 19 2009 19:25
Beth darling, that picture surely doesn't discourage reproduction at all. Seriously though, the only way a lasting equilibrium is going to be reached is by culturally spreading the notion that two kids is ideal because quality is more important than quantity. How? Religions won't cooperate, education works but is vulnerable, using advertising methods like television soaps is a promising avenue. As a final caveat: prolific breeders will outbreed slow breeders. The change of attitude will happen in a complete region, or not at all.
Your mom
Thu Nov 19 2009 15:10
I encourage everyone to watch this video about overpopulation: www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY If you manage to make it all the way through, please comment here about it.
Your name
Thu Nov 19 2009 15:09
For some reason my comments don't post on here...this is a test
Baby boom
Thu Nov 19 2009 15:04
MikeJ81-

You must believe everything the media tells you. Take a look at reality. The world's drinkable water supply is barely there and food right along with it. I completely think Beth's article is irrelevant and stupid. Glad to know she can't drink milk, eat meat, have a faith, or reproduce now. But get your facts straight.

Dave
Thu Nov 19 2009 13:20
"I only deny we have an unalienable right or obligation to reproduce". My god!!! Hitler said something along those lines about Jews right before he slaughtered 6 million of them.
B
Thu Nov 19 2009 13:05
Well Beth, I personally feel that over population is due to the fact that we have no natural predators and also because we have managed to band all possible ways for people, dumb and smart, to die. But yes your opinion is good. Lets stuff contraceptives down the throat of every female able to reproduce. Hell why wait there. At birth lets just remove baby girls reproductive system. Now all I have to do is throw some figures at this article, cite some random line out of some article and my idea would seem valid too. See I can write a Beth Mendenhall article too.
Your name
Thu Nov 19 2009 13:02
Her parents are very proud to have raised an open minded and intelligient daughter.
dumba** story
Thu Nov 19 2009 12:05
If only your parents had thought about not procreating
MikeJ81
Thu Nov 19 2009 11:58
It's people like you who put a depressingly low value on human life. Just like Ebenezer Scrooge, "If they would rather die, let them do it and decrease the surplus population." Over population has yet to proove to be an actual problem. Coming from San Francisco, CA to KS, I would say the major cities are the only places in the U.S. alone affected by "over population". The bulk of the Midwestern States- hardly!!!






log out