A Response to a Comment about Human Overpopulation

I received this comment today in my inbox about my blog post “Test Results” on being pregnant:

"I like your words, they inspire me a lot but I have a feeling that you are becoming paranoyd [sic] with this hunt for pregnancy. I see you copying the duggars´ life style. It seems that you don´t think about the planet which is overpopulated, the bad world we are living in. It´s a irresponsibility [sic] this way of thinking because you are not alone in this planet. there [sic] are so many children in need for a family why don´t you go adopt some and get satisfied with your big family."

First of all, I am not "paranoid" about my pregnancy and I don't "hunt" to be pregnant. I do not "copy" any family in regards to how my husband and I run our family. Also, the Lord has not opened the door for adoption yet. I am a huge advocate for adoption because I was adopted by my father. I also get the feeling this person doesn't know me very well, and it may have been the first time they visited my blog and they must be under the impression that we have a lot of children. We only have two live children because we have had 4 miscarriages. This is my 7th pregnancy and we are praising the Lord for another opportunity to have a baby and raise him/her for the glory of God.

We are also not looking at the size of our family from an ecological point of view but from a Biblical worldview. It appears the person who commented has been duped like the majority of the world into thinking that there is a human overpopulation problem and that "Mother Earth" is running out of resources, or will eventually run out of resources to support a dangerously growing population. This is 100% false. There is not one shred of factual or scientific evidence to support Thomas Malthus' theory that the human population grows geometrically while agricultural resources grow linearly.

This is a subject I have done immense research into, and continue to research. I did a research paper for an Environmental Science class last year on this very subject. I had the honor of having email correspondence with demographer Phillip Longman, who is an atheist and works for a secular think-tank in Washington D.C. on this topic. He wrote a very informative book on declining fertility rates and the supposed overpopulation issue, called "The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What To Do About It".

Here is part of my email to Mr. Longman:

“My first question is; why is it so hard, even with the evidence available to convince people that there isn't a crisis of overpopulation? I can't seem to explain or convince anyone in my class that there is a demographic problem. They refuse to accept the evidences I have put forth. My instructor has applauded my effort at showing the other side of the debate. I am a Christian, and I would assume by some a "fundamentalist". Is that what discredits me in this debate? Do you have any other suggestions for resources that might help me? This isn't merely a debate in a class, but a debate that seems to permeate within my entire family. My husband and I have two lovely children, and we have experienced the loss of three through miscarriage. We are not taking any steps to "control" our fertility by means of contraceptives; we are simply allowing nature (God) to takes its course. We are considered to be fanatical in this regard, because why in the world would we actually desire more children than the two we have? Each time this subject comes up, the book Population Bomb is thrown back at me as proof or evidence that over population is a crisis we are facing. Are there other resources that I can look into that might help me with this topic? It seems the local library only has books that support over population...which is why I went ahead and ordered a few books, including yours.

I am sure at this point you might be wondering why this crazy lady is emailing you. After seeing your interview in 'Demographic Winter', especially at the very end, we realize that you weren't someone who was pushing some religious agenda, which in our opinion made you more credible. Not sure that makes sense, but to us it does. Any suggestions or help you can offer would be greatly appreciated. Either way my husband and I are grateful for the work you do.”

Mr. Longman responded to my email very quickly. Here is how he answered my questions:

“Dear Crystal: Thank you for your inquiry. I think you will find in the first pages of Empty Cradle one answer, which is that in day to day life most people experience the world as becoming ever more crowded: traffic gets worse, jobs lines grow, college admissions become more competitive, etc. From this experience, people find themselves thinking, oh, wouldn’t be nice if there just fewer people getting in my way all the time, forgetting that is those other people who collectively provide the goods, services, ideas and company without which we would be hopelessly lonely, materially and spiritually impoverished, and ultimately abandoned. Even people in countries that are already in absolute population decline are susceptible to this feeling, often because, even when number of people fall, the number cars, for examples, grows while jobs become more scarce.

Focusing on over-population also allows people an excuse for the pollution and environmental degradation they create. Instead of concentrating on how they may need to change their own lives to benefit the planet and future generations, they concentrate on how other people are having “too many” children. In debate, even Paul Erhlich agreed with me that it is the population of cars, not people, that is the world’s greatest environmental threat.

Finally, the over-population meme strengthens social causes to which many are attached, specifically, feminism, gay rights, environmentalism and personal liberation generally. It does so by weakening the social pressures that have long coerced people into traditional marriage and family formation. The fear is that in a world of declining human population, society would become much more socially and religiously conservative and intolerant of “non-breeders.” This is why they push back.

Best, Phil”

You can contact Mr. Phillip Longman yourself HERE (http://www.newamerica.net/people/phillip_longman)

After this discourse with Mr. Longman I went on to complete my research paper on the subject of, “Human Population: Is Fertility Decline Harmful to Human Population?” I will include it at the end of this blog. It is 16 pages long, so this will be the longest blog I have ever posted. (Please bear with me a little while longer because I need to do this particular claim justice.)

Mr. Phillip Longman addresses this subject again in his article “The Return of PATRIARCHY”.

“Across the globe, people are choosing to have fewer children or none at all. Governments are desperate to halt the trend, but their influence seems to stop at the bedroom door. Are some societies destined to become extinct? Hardly. It’s more likely that the conservatives will inherit the Earth. Like it or not, a growing proportion of the next generation will be born to families who believe that father knows best” (Longman, 2006).

He also says “Falling fertility is also responsible for many financial and economic problems that dominate today’s headlines” (Longman, 2006). Notice the date; 2006, and now our financial and economic status are even worse some 4 years after this article was published. As the years go on, even the U.S. Census Bureau is reporting a steady decline in fertility rates. Americans are barely holding on to the replacement ratio of 2.1. All around the world fertility rates are already dangerously too low. “One of the largest threats to Russia and its long-term potential is the rapid decrease in the country’s population” (Dolan, 2009). The majority of Russia’s fertility decline is due to abortion and STDs. (Dolan, 2009) I found it pretty telling when I read, “Since 2003, USAID has partnered with regional health authorities under Maternal and Child Health Initiative to DECREASE abortion rates…and improve reproductive health services” (Dolan, 2009, emphasis mine). As of last year, “the number of deaths outstrips the number of births in the country…” (Dolan, 2009). Our government is HELPING Russia increase their population! (You can read the article here.)

China is facing the same fate. Some three decades ago, China instituted their “one-couple, one-child family” and the effects of such a policy have been detrimental to modern day China. So much so, China is taking steps to do away with this policy in hopes up increasing fertility rates. I explain more of this in my research paper. Would you like to know why there are such problems with female trafficking in China? Read my research paper.

In Don Feder’s summary of “Demographic Winter” he says,

“What the world faces in the 21^st century is another type of demographic crisis, but one that is painfully real: falling fertility rates and aging populations which could ultimately endanger civilization.

The average woman has to have 2.1 children during her lifetime – just to replace current population. [Meaning she and her male counterpart]

In less than 40 years, fertility rates have fallen by over 50% worldwide. In 1970, the average woman had 6 children during her lifetime. Today, the global average is 2.9. The United Nations Population Division predicts a further decline to 2.05 by 2050.

In much of the industrialized world, the crisis can be discerned even now:

- Europe might as well hang a “Going Out of Business” sign on its door. The average birth rate for the European Union is 1.5, well below replacement (2.1). In Italy, it’s 1.2.

- Russia has a birth rate of 1.17, down from 2.4 in 1990. There are now almost as many abortions as births in the Russian Federation. The nation is losing roughly 750,000 people a year. Its current population (143 million) is expected to decline to 112 million by 2050. In a desperate effort to stave off demographic winter, the government is offering a baby bonus of 250,000 rubles (the equivalent of $9,200) for every child a family has after the first.

- Worldwide, there are 6 million fewer children (6 years of age and younger) today than there were in 1990. This is an initial tremor of a coming earthquake. If current trends continue, by 2050, the world will hold 248 million fewer children under 5 than it does today.

- The industrialized world will soon face severe labor shortages. The European Union estimates a shortfall of 20 million workers by 2030” (Feder, 2008).

One thing is clear, “Throughout the course of history, there is NO instance of economic growth accompanied by population decline” (Feder, 2008, emphasis mine).

So what does this mean? It means that Biblical Patriarchy and the Adamic Commission to “be fruitful and multiply” will in the end, prove yet again, God has a standard and He demands and commands we live by it in order to preserve HIS people. Research by Demographers has proven time and time again, that Thomas Malthus was grossly incorrect, along with Paul Erlich, the author of “The Population Bomb”. That one book caused a panic in the 1970s that has most definitely impacted how we view children, even within the Church.

God designed mankind to have children, a family; one that would leave a Godly, Biblical legacy for future generations. The only way to rid the world of pagan, ungodly cultures and ideologies is to breed them out. God makes this quite clear all throughout His word. We are not going to appoint leaders to legislate biblical morality. The buck stops with dad and mom, trusting God with their fertility, and raising the children God gives them in HIS ways, leaving a multi-generational BIBLICAL and GODLY faithfulness and legacy. This means whether God gives us one child, two children, a dozen children, or 40 children. It is not about just the number of children, it is about the “kind” of children we raise up. If we raise up children who devalue life and children, then we can bet they won’t have children of their own, which means the legacy ends with that generation.

We as a culture, even within Christendom have bought the lies that have been perpetuated by men like Thomas Malthus, Charles Darwin and women like Margret Sanger. We see it in our churches because if a woman walks in with two little ones on her hip, and 6 others trailing behind her, we all look at her like she has grown a third eye in the middle of her forehead. Not only that, we actually begin to pity her! When that same woman is at the check-out counter in the store, we treat her like she is a circus freak, and question her motives for having so many children. Her motives MUST be less than honorable or intelligent to subject herself with the misery of having so many children. Some would even argue that the government needs to step in and force her to be sterilized, or force her to have abortions with each subsequent pregnancy. Even worse, there are many who follow, Margret Sanger, Charles Darwin and Thomas Mathus’ idea of euthanasia. ALL of these ideas have infiltrated the church in one form or another.

My parent’s generation and their parents were all under the belief that we need to limit population growth because we are becoming increasingly overcrowded and resources are running out. This has never been proven through demographic or scientific evidences. They all bought the lie pushed by the government and others who are propionates of “population control”. Now we are beginning to feel the effects of our parents and grandparents buying into that lie. Not enough young people to support our ever growing older population who are now transitioning into retirement.

There is not, and has never been a “human overpopulation problem”. To use that as an excuse not to have children or to limit the number of children a family has is not only unbiblical, but it is based on false information. I suggest those who make erroneous claims that having too many children is harmful to the earth, actually research the subject and take a look at the facts, not popular news media propaganda or other social agendas that seeks to destroy the “traditional family”, which was designed for GOD’s purposes.

And now, I leave you with my research paper which will include all of the citations for what I cited above. Enjoy!

***aldo, I hope this answers your comment, and that you will take the time to honestly look at the evidence of “overpopulation” that has been done by actual Demographers, not just parrot what the media says.***

Serving God and My Family,

Crystal <>< (SAHM)

---

Human Population: Is Fertility Decline Harmful to Human Population?

Crystal M. Sewell

SCI 207

Professor Duyen-Nguyen-Gauthier

6 October 2009

Human Population: Is Fertility Decline Harmful to Human Population?

Introduction

“People experience the world as becoming ever more crowded: traffic gets worse, job lines grow, college admissions become more competitive, etc.” (P. Longman, personal communication, September 15, 2009). With this experience people tend to naturally assume that the world is becoming absurdly overpopulated and that resources are becoming scarce. Not only do people worry about resources, but environmentalists frequently inundate the culture with concerns that too many people reeks havoc on Mother Earth. Many of these same people, disgruntled by how cramped their city is, feel that if there were fewer people getting in their way life would be a much more pleasant place, “forgetting that [it] is those other people who collectively provide the goods, services, ideas and company without which we would be hopelessly lonely, materially and spiritually impoverished, and ultimately abandoned” (P. Longman, personal communication, September 15, 2009). The effects of falling birth rates initially appear to be beneficial to the human population, however, a closer look at the demographics and long term effects of falling birth rates pose to be detrimental to the human population.

Human Overpopulation

Demographers all over the world are on a quest to determine if declining birthrates pose a threat to human population (Easton, 2009). Demographers and researchers who seek to prove that the human population is growing to a size that the Earth cannot support, find their initial premise in Thomas Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population, first published in 1798. Thomas Malthus essay was revised several times between the years 1798 and 1826. (Foster, 1998) Malthus initial arguments shifts in the later editions, but the changes in subsequent texts are considered minor. (Foster, 1998)

Malthus’ first essay “title [An Essay on the Principles as it Effects the Future Improvements of Society] indicates…an attempt to intervene in a debate on the question of the future improvement of society” (Foster, 1998). This controversial debate was initiated by Robert Wallace in his “work entitled Various Prospects for mankind, Nature, and Providence” (Foster, 1998). Robert Wallace argued “that human population if unchecked tended to increase exponentially, doubling every few decades…leaving earth “overstocked…and unable to support its inhabitants” (Foster, 1998). Mr. Godwin countered Robert Wallace by arguing that human population is regulated by the condition of society. (Foster, 1998) Godwin also believed that there were many acceptable methods of keeping the population in check such as infanticide “by the exposing of children, as among the ancients, and, at this day, in China; by the art of procuring abortion,…by a systematical abstinence…” (Foster, 1998) Thomas Malthus approached the debate quite differently, and sought to counter Godwin’s argument by insisting “that there was a constant tendency toward equilibrium between population and food supply”, but also argued that if the human population were left to increase naturally that it would “increase at a geometrical rate (1, 2, 4, 8, 16), while food supply increased…in an arithmetical rate (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)” (Foster, 1998). Malthus believed that human population should be regulated in an effort to create that equilibrium between humans and the food supply. He also argued that human population was also reducible by “vise and misery, taking such forms as promiscuity before marriage, which limited fecundity (a common assumption in Malthus’ time), sickness, plagues,…the dreaded scourge of famine” (Foster, 1998). While Godwin and other thinkers believed that these vises were necessary for the improvement of society which would keep the population in line with the food supply, Malthus believed it to be impossible. (Foster, 1998)

Thomas Malthus’s revised essay of 1803, in which he changed the title to: An Essay on the Principle of Population; or a View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness; with an Inquiry into our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal of Mitigation of the Evils which it Occasions, contained a in it “the most notorious passages [in regards] to illegitimate children” (Foster, 1998). Malthus believed “that the poor were not entitled to the smallest portion of relief…”, stating that “we cannot, in the nature of things assist the poor, in any way, without enabling them to rear up to manhood a greater number of their children” (Foster, 1998). This passage was removed from later editions of Malthus’s Essay; however, Karl Marx made the observation in 1844, from Thomas Malthus’ writings “that charity…itself fostered social evils” (Foster, 1998). The arguments that Malthus posed in later essays were an attempt at “attacking the English Poor Laws. Limiting the poor people from increasing in population would keep the human population as a whole down, thus creating equilibrium between human population and food supplies. Malthus felt that we have a “moral [obligation to not] increase too fast” (Malthus, 1803, p.131). Thomas Malthus was successful at converting “most economists of the day from believing that high fertility increased gross domestic output to believing that per capita output actually fell with rapidly rising population” (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2009, p. 78).

The Population Bomb

Dr. Paul Ehrlich author of the 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, describes a world of “Too Many People [and] Too Little Food” (Ehrlich, 1968, p. 3 and p. 18). Dr. Ehrlich’s book brought back Thomas Malthus’ prospective on the need to control human population. Dr. Ehrlich illustrates; in his book The Population Bomb, how the world is becoming overpopulated by what he and his family experienced in Delhi,

“My wife and daughter and I were returning to our hotel in an ancient taxi. The seats were hopping with fleas. The only functional gear was third. As we crawled through the city, we entered a crowded slum area. The temperature was well over 100, and the air was a haze of dust and smoke. The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people”. (p.1)

Dr. Ehrlich proceeds with addressing the social implications of a human population growing out of control when he states that “Indeed, social and environmental problems not only increase with growing population and urbanization, they tend to increase at an even faster rate” (Ehrlich, 1968, p. 9). He then goes on to contend that with the increase in human population on any given “area increases the damage done by each individual [and that] doubling the population normally much more than doubles the environmental deterioration” (Ehrlich, 1968, p.9). According to Dr. Ehrlich (1968) the problem of human overpopulation is based on the critical “relationship between birth rate[s] and death rate[s]” (p.11). Dr. Paul Ehrlich predicted that another baby boom would occur around the year 2000 when children under the age of 15 during the late 60’s would move into reproductive ages. (Ehrlich, 1968) He believed that generation would be “the gunpowder for the population explosion” (Ehrlich, 1968, p. 12). He believed that the reason for this crisis could be found within “the process of natural selection, the development of culture, and man’s swollen head” (Ehrlich, 1968, p. 12). According to Dr. Ehrlich (1968), the urge to breed is inherently within us because of “billions of years of evolution” (p. 13). During mankind’s billions of years through the evolutionary process, the birth rate and death rate were nearly the same, hence the reason that this urge to reproduce works in mankind’s favor. (Ehrlich, 1968) However, mankind has evolved over the past few thousand years to a time when mortality rates are low in infants due to modern medicine and better hygiene practices. The art of agriculture has been gained which means there is no longer a need to hunt food for survivability, people can now settle down and grow their own food. (Ehrlich, 1968)

Environmental Concerns

There are many researchers who argue that human overpopulation brings with it many social and environmental problems; such as an increase in crime, poverty, and an overhaul on the environment with the need for more homes and food to sustain a growing population. If human population could be regulated “this might reduce that awful sense of competitiveness that is a relatively recent feature of cultural life, for jobs, places at school or university, or entry to prized social institutions or niches” (Easton, 2009, p. 253). Population decline would reduce fossil fuel emissions and save land for plants and animals. (Easton, 2009) “These fears often lead to demands for immediate, worldwide birth-control programs to reduce fertility rates and to eventually stabilize or even shrink the total number of humans” (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2009, p.76). The belief that planet Earth is reaching its “carrying capacity”: the balance (or lack of it) between a physical environment and the numbers it can support” has many researchers concerned for the future of mankind (Easton, 2009, p.253). “Entomologist David Pimental, [from Cornell University], for example, has said: “By 2100, if current trends continue, twelve billion miserable humans will suffer a difficult life on Earth” (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2009, p.78). There are differing views on what causes an overgrowth of human population. Thomas Malthus would argue that the lack of “moral restraint” was a major factor, while Karl Marx believed it was due to poverty. (Cunningham and Cunningham, 2009, p.78)

There are many measures that can be taken to decrease fertility and combat human overpopulation. Thomas Malthus and those who also ascribe to an overpopulation crisis would suggest individuals be educated on birth-control techniques or possible government regulations on fertility, such as in China. China instituted the one-child-per-family law which has aided in controlling their population. The legalization of abortion has also been used to decrease the growth of human population. Social reforms have been made to educate women and give them more options for their lives and control over their fertility which has helped to control the growth of the human population. Dr. Paul Ehrlich argues “We must have population control at home, hopefully though a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail” (McLerran and Stout, 2009). However, there are researchers who reject that there is an overpopulation crisis, and would argue that that fertility rates have declined at a rate that mankind may be heading towards an opposite crisis.

Effects of Declining Birth Rates

“There is a problem with [human] population and that is a demographic imbalance caused by culture and policies that are reactions to Malthusian ideology” (Reference to Week 2 Initial Discussion Board Post). Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1992, Dr. Gary Becker from the University of Chicago claims, “Any economy who doesn’t have substantial investments in its peoples human capital it won’t become…a rich economy” (McLerran and Stout, 2009). The UN has reported “a slowing of growth [in human population], to be followed by an actual decline in population” (Easton, 2009, p.245). The human population has grown since the time of Malthus, and is expected to continue to grow to 9.2 billion by the year 2050, according to the UN’s World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision. (Easton, 2009, p.245) However, the number just mentioned appears to be misleading, as it has been reported that “Fertility rates have dropped by half since 1972, from six children per woman to 2.9…and they’re still falling, faster than ever” (Easton, 2009, p.246). While the human population globally will continue to increase peaking at approximately 9 billion by 2050, it is predicted to drastically decline after this. (Easton, 2009, p.246) These declines in population or fertility are already evident in many parts of the world and under developed nations are not free from its effects. What has happened mainly is a shift in demographics leaving far too many older people (65 years of age and older) and too few young people (children under the age of 5). The crisis in this is that there will not be enough people of working age to support a growing population of retirees. The U.S. Census Bureau in a report released August 14, 2008, estimates that in the year 2010 the percentage of children under the age of five will account for 6.8% of the population, while 12.97% account for the population representing those who are 65 years and older. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008) By 2050 the U.S. Census Bureau estimates these percentages will drastically change to 6.41% of the population will be children under the age of five, while 20.17% are the 65 years and older generation. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008) These are the predictions for the United States only. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, is referring to the fertility and population decline in his country as a “national crisis” (Easton, 2009, p.247). Russia’s population “is shrinking by 700,000 every year…and by 2050, some experts predict that the country’s population could be as low as 120 million” (Yassman, 2006). For Russia the causes of this dramatic depopulation is due to “a very low birth rate, very high mortality rate, short life expectancy, and a growing number of deaths from “unnatural causes” (Yassman, 2006). Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt declares Russia’s depopulation “a relentless, unremitting, and perhaps [an] unstoppable depopulation” (Eberstadt, 2009). Russia has gone through stages of depopulation in its past, mainly caused by social and political instability. “Russia’s population plummeted by more than 13 million through the cataclysms and catastrophes of World War II” (Eberstadt, 2009). Dr. Eberstadt concludes that “Terror and war are not the engines for the depopulation Russia is experiencing today, as they have been in the past” (2009). The United Nations Population Division (UNPD) and the U.S. Bureau of the Census, project a “continuing downward course for the Russian Federation’s population over the generation ahead” (Eberstadt, 2009). According to Dr. Eberstadt; “Russian leadership will have to acknowledge that these daunting long-term developments are shrinking their country’s social and political potential” (2009).

Fertility Replacement Ratio and Causes of Fertility Decline

“To reproduce itself, a society’s women must each year bear 2.1 children”, in reality however, many nations are not even close to meeting the sub-replacement ratio (Easton, 2009, p.246). “In 20 [less developed countries] (LDCs), fertility rates are already below replacement levels or soon will be, including Iran, Mexico, and Brazil” (Cohen, 2005). China is the poster child for a decline in the total fertility rate of its citizens, which “fell from 6.06 between 1960 and 1965 to around 1.8…due largely to China’s coercive one-child policy” (Cohen, 2005). While China’s birth rates are well below sub-replacement levels, “Russia has a birth rate of 1.17, down from 2.4 in 1990 [and it is reported that there are] almost as many abortions as births in the Russian Federation” (Feder, 2008). The decline in fertility is seen throughout Europe as the “average birth rate for the European Union is 1.5” with Italy coming in at 1.2; dangerously below the replacement ratio (Feder, 2008). Many countries are offering incentives to families in an effort to encourage them to have more children. Russia, in an attempt to bring fertility rates up, “is offering a baby bonus of 250,000 rubles (the equivalent of $9,200) for every child a family has after the first” (Feder, 2008). China is attempting to find ways to move past the one-child-per-family policy, while countries like Singapore are making efforts to raise their fertility rate by sponsoring “speed dating” (Longman, 2006). However, all of these incentives and initiatives do not “cause people to have any more children than they otherwise would” (Longman, 2006). The problem facing mankind with fertility rates well below replacement is that they will inevitably bring a demographic imbalance of far too many elderly and not enough babies being born who will grow up and support the aging population.

According to McLerran and Stout (2008), within our society discussions concerning the possible causes for the decline in fertility is often avoided in an effort to not offend others. The causes of worldwide fertility decline according to the research contained in the documentary Demographic Winter are prosperity, the sexual revolution, women’s liberation, the divorce revolution, and inaccurate assumptions. (McLerran and Stout, 2009). All of these causes spark much controversy amongst political groups who have invested their life’s work into securing certain social reforms. History proves that when certain social reforms were secured, and there were drastic changes in beliefs and values, fertility rates began to decline. One major social change was that of feminism ushered in by Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, when she began making efforts to make birth control available to women. It would appear that with the availability of birth control the sexual revolution made its entrance into the world. With the rise in women using birth control methods, came with it the postponing of marriage, and following close behind was the increased rate of divorce and the breakdown of the human family.

The breakdown of the human family has been caused by major social movements. Demographer Philip Longman, author of The Empty cradle, explains that doing away with traditional fundamentalist value systems that include patriarchy have much to do with the breakdown of the human family which inevitably causes fertility decline. (Longman, 2006) Longman argues that those incorporate a patriarchal system tend to increase “their power, whereas those that didn’t were either overrun or absorbed” (Longman, 2006). In a patriarchal family the mother is allowed to invest more into her children, than a mother who works outside of the home, forcing someone else to invest in her child. Dr. Eberstadt suggests that social science data gives a good explanation for fertility levels based on women who were surveyed on their desired family size. (McLerran and Stout, 2009) One of the biggest causes of fertility decline is from the use of the birth control pill which eliminates 70% of the unwanted pregnancies of married women. (McLerran and Stout, 2009) More and more couples are postponing marriage, which increases the rate of premarital cohabitation, and causes fertility decline because most of these couples use some form of birth control to prevent pregnancy. Dr. Viktor Medkov, Professor of Sociology at State University in Russia states, “If trends continue as they are, families will cease to exist, and so will children, things that we have valued so dear. Some are optimistic, and say, that we can fabricate children. We don’t need families” (McLerran and Stout, 2009). Still many scholars will argue that Earth simply cannot supply enough food for a growing population. In the 20^th century the human population quadrupled, making it “the greatest population growth in human history” and yet the food supply became less expensive and more abundant than ever before (McLerran and Stout, 2009). Environmentalist will argue that with more people, the more strain it puts on the Earth by way of an increased carbon footprint. Phillip Longman rejects this buy showing that in China, as the family size decreases the “per capita carbon emissions” increases (Longman, PBS, 2009). When the tradition family unit is broken due to divorce, carbon emissions will increase because the family has gone from a single family home, to now needing two separate homes. It requires double the amount of energy for electricity and water supplies. There are more houses than ever before due to single people living alone, or divided families, which is the reason for an increase in environmental pollutions, not overpopulation of people.

Have We Been Here Before?

History can be an accurate predictor of the future. Mankind has experienced a crisis of fertility decline before. Secular ideologies plagued Imperial Rome and caused them to eventually die off along with their “ancestor’s idea of Rome” (Longman, 2006). Rome did remain populated only the demographics of its population had changed, ushering in a new patriarchal age, where secular ideologies were discarded for a faith that taught be fruitful and multiply or serve in a monastery. (Longman, 2006) Greece also became familiar with the effects of incorporating a secular worldview and straying from traditional family values. Polybius circa 140 B.C., lamented over the plight of his people when he said, “In our time all Greece was visited by a dearth of children and general decay of population…This evil grew upon us rapidly, and without attracting attention, by our men becoming perverted to a passion for the show and money and the pleasures of an idle life” (McLerran and Stout, 2009). If history is a good indicator of future events, those who reject the traditional views of children and family, may end up extinct bringing with them their ideologies which will have no chance of being passed down through a multigenerational family legacy.

Conclusion

It does appear from comparing and contrasting both sides of the debate over “Do Falling Birth rates pose a threat to human population”, that the debate has not been settled between the two camps. In fact, a new threat to humanity has arisen because of falling fertility rates, and it has been coined a “Demographic Winter” (McLerran and Stout, 2009). Many, who continue to declare the threat of overpopulation, use it as a means to propagate their political or social agendas. “Instead of concentrating on how they may need to change their own lives to benefit the planet and future generations, they concentrate on how other people are having “too many” children” (P. Longman, personal communication, September 15, 2009). While declining birthrates may appear to be a convenient way to push political or social agendas, the long term effects to mankind may prove to be detrimental to the same political or social agendas, in that there will not be future generations to carry them on.

Resources

Cohe, E. (2005). Where have all the children gone? Public Interest. (159), 170, 6. Retrieved 5 September 2009, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 841741591)

Cunningham & Cunningham. (2009). Principles of Environmental Science: Inquiry & Application. McGraw-Hill Companies: Boston.

Dolan, T. (2009). United States Helps Russia Reverse Population Decline: Russia places high priority on building healthy families. America. Retrieved 2 September 2009, from http://www.america.gov/st/texttrans-english/2009/August/20090810144831eaifas5.968875e-02.html

Feder, D. (2008). ‘Demographic Winter’ Exposes the Century’s Overlooked Crisis. Human Events. Retrieved 5 September 2009, from http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25723

Foster, J.B. (1998). Malthus’ Essay On population at age 200: A Marxian View. Monthly Review, 50(7), 1-18. Retrieved 2 October 2009, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 37826524)

Easton, T. (2009). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environmental Issues. McGraw-Hill Companies: Boston.

Eberstadt, N. (2009). Drunken Nation: Russia’s Depopulation Bomb. World Affairs. Retrieved 6 September 2009, from http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/2009-Spring/full-Eberstadt.html

Longman, P. (2009). The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity. PBS. Retrieved 14 September 2009 from http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2009/empty_cradle_pbs

Longman, P. (2006). The Return of PATRIARCHY. Foreign Policy, (153), 56-60, 62-65. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 1002213151)

Malthus, T. (1976). An Essay on the Principle of Population. In P. Appleman (Eds.), An Essay on the Principle of Population (pp. 15-130). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Malthus, T. (1976). An Essay on the Principle of Population. In P. Appleman (Eds.), An Essay on the Principle of Population (pp. 130-139). New York: W.W. Norton & Company

McLerran, B. & Stout, R. (Producers). (2008). Demographic Winter: the decline of the human family. [Motion Picture]. United States: Acuity Productions

Yassman, V. (2006). Russia: Health Ministry Considers Solutions To Population Decline. Radio Free Europe. Retrieved 6 September 2009, from http://www.rferl.org/articleprintview/1066227.html