“No Babies?” and World Population Day
Digg This!On June 29th the New York Times Sunday Magazine published Russell Shorto’s essay titled “No Babies?”that fostered a timely discussion related to World Population Day (July 11th). In the article, Mr. Shorto writes, “The fears on the right are of a continent-wide takeover by third-world hordes – mostly Muslim – who have yet to be infected by the modern malady called family planning and who threaten to transform, if not completely delete, the storied, cherished cultures of Western Europe.” It seems clear that changing global economics and regional immigration pressures must be addressed. However, it is unreasonable to deal with these issues solely in the context of specific regional/ethnic birth rates.
Implicitly, Mr. Shorto draws a rough equivalence between the fears of the right and the rapidly expanding gap between global sustainability and increased resource consumption. The essay understated the effect of global population momentum and its consequences while it over-valued the fears of a few economists, philosophers, and theologians. In the July 13th edition, the magazine published several letters to the editor (including mine) with widely varying perspectives on these themes.
One shortcoming of Mr. Shorto’s piece is the acceptance of using regional or even ethnic birth rates to develop government policies that encourage women to bear more children. Globally, this response is disproportionate. Ben Wattenberg, of the American Enterprise Institute, has sounded this alarm for many years. The basis of this argument (and fear) is that if birth rates continue to decline at the current rate, world population may begin to decline in 2050. However, he fails to take into account advances that have improved child survival rates, which for many families mean fewer births. Mr. Wattenberg argues that we should act as though we are on the edge of extinction right now. Perhaps we can all agree that if we’re worried about species extinction, we should begin by providing clean water, adequate nutrition, and preventive health care for the children in need who are already living on this earth. Secondly, under Wattenberg’s 2050 scenario with 12 to 18 billion people on the planet, my fear is that population might NOT begin to decline or will be forced to decline due to a lack of resources.
Mr. Shorto’s essay also cited experts who were optimistic about increasing economic opportunities for women as well as egalitarianism in terms of family responsibilities. This is the preferred means through which we can achieve a decent and sustainable worldwide standard of living. Nevertheless, the improvement family planning and population stabilization on women’s health and well being was omitted. According to the United Nations Population Fund, a woman on this planet dies from pregnancy or childbirth every minute. In the context of improving the global standard of living, a declining birth rate can mean significant advances for the health of women and families everywhere. This reality is not mentioned in Mr. Shorto’s essay.
World Population Day brings these divergent themes together. For a ground level perspective on global population issues, www.Belowthewaist.org recently interviewed Dr. Ned Grossnickle, former national chairman of Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program. In this two part feature, Professor Grossnickle discusses his world travels to study family planning programs, the environmental impact of population growth, and micro-economics. Among his world travels, he’s recently been to China and Ethiopia. Additionally, Dr. Grossnickle discusses his efforts to advocate for increased funding to programs that address population stabilization in a constructive way.
