This editorial is right on the money. Go back 100 years and ask scientists of
that day what would happen if there were 7 billion people on the planet. I
guarantee they would predict complete societal collapse. Yet, as the editorial
correctly points out, we now have 7 billion people inhabiting the planet and
they all live in far better circumstances than those who were living 100 years
What we need is more rational, thoughtful discussion on human families and
poverty. Growing up on a tiny island in the Pacific Ocean, I saw that poverty
is a state of mind. People slept under tin roofs and swept dirt floors. Yet
they ate like kings and had an overall generous and positive attitude towards
each other. In the U.S. I see people in black leather jackets driving nice cars
using food stamps. They see themselves as "underprivileged" and
therefore, deserving of a handout. A study of history shows that simply having
more people does not mean there is more suffering. Conversely, having less of a
population does mean Utopia either. The people who scream about overpopulation
and climate change have not studied the history of the earth. When has the
earth's climate NOT been changed? "There and back again" seems a
fitting title. It seems to me that war and famine and ignorance are what cause
human suffering. Africa, without the disruption of war and genocide, would be
much more able to feed and care for it's own. Resources? Define such. We
could all live quite happily with less.
Folks, you want to know where this crazy notion of earth overpopulation started?
It began with (you guessed it…) a radical Leftist College Professor by
the name of Paul Ehrlich. He’s a biology professor at Stanford
University. In 1968 he wrote a book called “The Population Bomb.”
As you can guess from the title, it was chock full of dire warnings and
predictions about the doom that faced our earth if population wasn’t
brought under control. As you can also guess, this book and its bogus
predictions were celebrated by Liberals everywhere.Just a few of
Professor Ehrlich’s cataclysmic predictions from his 1968 book:* In the 1970s, hundreds of millions of people would starve to death.* In the 1980s, food riots would cause the president to dissolve the US
Congress, and 65 million Americans would die of starvation and disease. * By 1999 the US population would be reduced to only 22 million, and
India and Great Britain would cease to exist. Nope, none of these
predictions came to pass…not even close!Professor Ehrlich is
now warning that overpopulation will force us to eat our dead.Looks
like overpopulation science is as accurate as global warming science.
@the truthFascism is very much an extreme right-wing ideology.
Leftist ideologies tend to look to do away with societal classes and put all on
even standing with the expectation that their contribution is to the collective
good while each has their individual needs met--also by the collective.
Right-wing ideologies such as fascism are nationalistic and expansionist in
nature with distinct and differing classes in society; the ruling class being at
the top and in charge of everything. In right-wing ideologies production is to
support the state; in left-wing ideologies it is to meet the needs of everyone
@the truth"OR our own death "waiting lists" used a our Veteran
Hospitals administators."Then tell McConnell not to filibuster
Bernie Sanders' funding expansion for the VA so they can hire more people
to help reduce the waiting times.
@the truthEven Glenn Beck's e-mail newsletter called the neo-nazi
germany just elected to an EU seat "far right".
The joy of children and the productivity of people to society are irreplaceable.
There's is enough for all and to spare; there are occasionally problems of
mismanagement of resources, but not of too large a population.
Based upon the sheer number of "recomended" posters it seems the DN
position is not held in high regard. One can only hope that we're smart
enough to realize the earth has a limited carrying capacity not only for humans
but for all of its inhabitants. Quality of life is not determined by the
quanity of those living it.
@GaryOYou are just plain wrong,There is and was noNO
right wing in Germany, nor in Europe, there was just left and far left. and
facism is neither right or left but its own thing with attributes from both
sides.Regardless of your perceptions, the american right wing is
nothing like you perceive.But we do know the Nazis were extremists
that took over a socialist party.I think it is outrageous and overly
convenient that you ignore the acts of the left wing and left wing
individuals against those groups you have mentioned. But we do know
the left has had their solutions, from starving millions in the Ukraine and in
china, to death camps. And Fabian socialist plans of removing surplus population
based on whom they most deemed worthy of life. OR our own death "waiting
lists" used a our Veteran Hospitals administators. (and by the way the same
thing is going on in Britain other places where there is socialist healthcare.
Because they can't afford to take care of everybody.)
@ Stable thought:How is that progressives protect Muslim extremists?
I think most progressives (and most conservatives) like families, though they
might disagree about how to protect family life. These do not seem like
conflicting positions to me. I think you are cherry-picking extreme positions
taken by some progressives and generalizing them to all progressives. We're a long way from Sharia law.
The facts are that until the 20th century women had about 2 children survive out
of 6 average births. Modern medicine and cheap energy let more children survive
and have enough to eat. Now women are CHOOSING to have just over 2
children on average. What is the great drama you are making out of this when it
seems GOD himself was fine for women to have about 2 surviving children
throughout human history?Was is god that didn't value family
life before the 20th century?
I always think it is entertaining to see how many conflicting positions the
progressives take, the dislike Religion in general, protect the Muslims
extremists, and don't like family's, but love their affluent living in
the US....well if the religious are the ones having babies they will have just
more of christian, Mormons to hate and more Muslims to love, just wait until the
progressives become a supper minority more and more and they have to live Sharia
@Ironhide"I'm not saying every family should have 6
kids..."Yes, I think you are.
@Ironhide, we no longer live on the frontier and need to bare free labor.God was talking to 2 people when he said "multiply...."higv said: "why are they starving? Is it overpopulation or
underproduction? Africa is close to equator and has rich natural resources. And
they are not dense. So government and way of life causes starvation not
overpopulation."Gotta ignore a lot of european influence, and
pilfering that continues still, to believe that line.
@Ironhide:I'm not positive as to why you think selfishness as a
reason not to have children is an issue? At least they are making the decision
to be child-free and enjoy themselves rather than have children they are not
sure they want. The way I see it, for every childless couple, there are enough
families with 6, 7, 8, etc. to make up for it. I believe that we are
overcrowding and this places a large strain on all resources, natural or not. A
prime example is the amount of taxes I pay to cover those with six or more
If we really read between the lines, this article does hold some kernels truth
if you dig down a bit. That the developed world's birth rate is going down
is true! By kernels, I meant kernel. The rest of this article appears to be
make-believe. It is amazing how an entire multi-page narrative is
gingerly build around just one tiny little fact that supports absolutely none of
And you shake your heads wondering how UTAH can possibly be the Net-Work
Marketing Ponzi Scheme capitol on Earth?...Exhibit A.
@Ironhide writes, "my view is skewed because I know so many amazing people
who want kids and can't."If these amazing people want kids,
there are plenty out there. Not all are babies. Not all are white. But
they're all beautiful, and they all deserve people who will love them and
commit to them.Except for my twins, who were seven months old when
we adopted them, our ten adopted kids were between 3 and 12 when they came to
us. Were there issues? You bet there were. Did we resolve them? Yes. Would
we do it again? In a heartbeat.
@Nate - "Some of you people have your values mixed up." You pointed out
the inconsistency in limiting births, considering that this is one of the very
reasons the earth was created.That is one of the most insightful
statements on population concerns that I've ever heard. Thank you for
highlighting this highly relevant principle.
Better not to be born at all, than to be born and suffer adverse economic
conditions?Some of you people have your values mixed up.
Hey "The Truth" -"The horrible answers that have come
from the left . . . have led to . . . the final solution of the Nazis"NO, that is NOT the TruthNazis, are Fascicts . . . . Far
Right-Wing Nationalists . . . not unlike America's far right wing . . .
Characterized by those who stalk and murder Jews, Sikhs, racial minorities, and
foreign-born Americans, as highlighted by news events during the last few
years.JoeBlow -"No one can sincerely believe that
this earth can sustain an infinite amount of people. Common sense would tell you
that"EXACTLY.Unfortunately, common sense is regarded
suspiciously in some circles.
If more people brought more innovation then China and India would be the most
innovative countries on the planet. Overpopulation and underpopulation
arguments are always wrong. There is a point where the earth will become
overpopulated, but it is likely a number so huge that people today can't
imagine it. Underpopulation is only a short term problem in a few places. Most
population problems are not technical but political. As an engineer I can
design a water purification system that would deliver 100 times the amount of
water we currently use without threat of drought to the entire US. We have a
pipeline across Alaska that pumps oil year round. We could just as easily pump
water from the Pacific or even the Atlantic ocean to water Nevada. But the cost
would be a few cents more per gallon and why bother when a short term cheap
solution makes the politician look good? So no need to be chicken little, the
size of the population is not really a problem.
I see nothing in this article or the comments supporting it which show any
concern for the people most affected by a riase in reproduction -- the women who
will have to bear the burden of, and rish their lives and health to
"process", the additional pregnancies and childbirths. The editorial
promotes "large" families which I presume means families of more than
3-4 children. I guess the editorial writers don't recognize the fact that
childbirth is one of the most risky activites a woman can undertake, and having
more than 3-4 children puts a woman at an ever-increasing risk of death or
injury in pregancy and childbirth. If people want "large" families,
then they should addopt some of the already-existing children who so badly need
loving homes and loving families, and not overbreed (have 6 or 7 or 8 or more
children). Women and their familieis would be better served if that is done.
You guys are overthinking this. There is much more truth to the article than
people realize, and if any of you were to take a population geography class you
would know why.Many European countries are already experiencing
problems with this. In France they already have to promise 6 months maternity
for leave just for women to have children, and only recently has this caused to
bring things back up near replacement level. Russia is having to pay women 10k
to encourage them to have a second child because they were only having 1.1
births per woman just a few years ago. South Korea has one of the lowest
fertility rates in the world at 1.3, and it is projected that in 2050 over 40%
of their population will be too old to work, leaving 3 working people to have to
provide the economic welfare for two elderly, not counting children they will
also have to look after. It isn't economically sustainable.
America's birth rate is only at 1.9, and it'll go down to about 1.7 as
Latino's continue to have less children and they become more
"Americanized," leading us to continue to have to rely more heavily on
This is a poorly written article that makes a huge, erroneous assumption that
there will be plenty of natural resources--from rare earth elements to oil to
trees to water, etc--for an unlimited population. Remember, the editorial
believes we have unlimited resources for an unlimited population.
Let me get this straight: Many of those who oppose population control and
abortion also oppose cutting pollution, which causes stillbirths & baby
deaths? It's a major concern in Vernal right now.
I guess what I meant to say is that developed countries will face the effects of
too low birth rate and an aging population. But for most developing countries,
high birth rates are a huge problem. So depending on where you're at,
it's a different problem...
So many seem to think that the solution is an ever increasing world
population.I can see how that can solve short term problems while
creating even larger long term problems.No one can sincerely believe
that this earth can sustain an infinite amount of people. Common sense would
tell you that.
If human ingenuity can figure out how an ever-growing population of humanity can
thrive with limited resources... than surely the problem of dealing with an
aging population should be a far easier problem to solve, instead, no?
I think we are making this too complicated.Many developing countries
are facing or will face the challenge of an aging population and need to
actually boost birth rates to a replacement level so this aging population will
be taken care of without it becoming too much of a burden on the younger
generation. However, the present economies of many of these nations continues
to discourage marriage let alone childbirth (USA as a great example).As for developing countries, many are overrun by way too big of populations.
Bangladesh is a classic example. They need to reduce their birthrate and do it
yesterday. There isn't enough land or resources for the people on hand. It
is a Malthusian nightmare. Malthus wasn't necessarily right on the macro
(world) level but he was right on in a regional level.
Plenty of water fro everyone, it is just in the wrong place. People choose where
they live based on the most illogical reasons when we consider "global
resources". The right answer is force them to live where the resources can
support them. Put them on ships and planes and move them to where the scientists
and sociologists say the water and resources can support them. I vote for those
that are worried about the overpopulation problem being the first ones to get on
the moving van.
The truly scary thing of all this will a be the solution form the left.We have a combination of problems, from fewer births to a growing older
population and a growing dependent and entitled population.Which
common sense tells us is entirely unsupportable in the long run.The
horrible answers that have come from the left from Marxism and socialism, have
led to communism and the final solution of the Nazis (originally thought up by
Fabian socialists decades earlier)One thing we do know entitlement
spending is failing all over the world including the US, witness her the
Social security system (which needs more younger people paying to only get a
horrible rate back) and the VA system (government controlled health care), and
look at how the left is destroying our education system by federalizing it. This commentary is right, there are better answers. And breathing hard
over imaginary problems isn't one of them.
Folks, I find it hard to believe that those promoting population control have
not seen what is going on in their world. One example: When Social Security was
first instituted there were approximately 47 workers paying in for every person
drawing out. There are now about 7 workers paying in for every person drawing
out and that ratio is going to drop significantly since the baby boomer
generation is just beginning to retire. Do the math and you will find that the
SS program is going to be bankrupt soon. Second example:
Demographers have calculated that due to China's one child policy and the
selective abortions that have been going on for a generation, there will soon be
30,000,000 more men than women. China is headed for a train wreck as these men,
with no hopes of ever marrying or having a relationship, become a huge criminal
population in the making. I listened to one economist comment on this
demographic problem and conclude that China is pretty well done.Third example: Russia: Already experiencing negative population growth, has
instituted a policy to pay women to stay home to have children and are getting
Someday, give or take a million years, human beings may have solved the mystery
of making food from the energy of sun light and other sources. And unless we
still have physical bodies, we may not need plants and other animals of even the
earth itself. We may exist as waves of energy, coming and going anywhere in the
universe that we choose. Able to manipulate the building blocks of time and
matter, we might think ourselves like Gods.
I had posted a good one here this morning.
@Gary O the Chinese population policy is sin against humanity it violates the
most basic human right for a couple to make there own decisions of how many
kids to have. China is ending it now or modifying it do to the problems it
caused. China is not better off do to that policy and hurt by it.
Wow, the libs are out in force on this thread. Yet the article is right on the
money. Rapidly slowing population growth in the developed world, combined with
emerging developing economies is creating a upside-down demographic profile in
Europe, Japan, China and in many other places around the globe. The U.S. is
still above replacement population growth, but just barely. The problem is that
a rapidly rising rate of elderly to young will create enormous strains on
government budgets, social welfare programs and families simultaneously.Those citing rapidly rising GLOBAL population are missing the point.
Many news mouths to feed in the poorest countries will not help the labor pool
or budget deficits that are bulging in developed nations. In other words, the
growth is in the wrong places...
@thornbirds why are they starving? Is it overpopulation or underproduction?
Africa is close to equator and has rich natural resources. And they are not
dense. So government and way of life causes starvation not overpopulation.
Ironhide:I have one child (a daughter who's eight years old)
because that's all I can emotionally and financially afford and I could
frankly care less if you think I'm lacking in "fortitude." In
spite of what many western Mormons think, parenting and childbearing is not a
race or a contest. Just because other people can't have kids doesn't
obligate me to pick up their slack. I make my own choices based on what I think
I can handle and then try to live accordingly.I suppose you could
say that I take personal responsibility. That's right, it's not just
a buzzword for conservatives...
I think that even the Deseret News editorial board will agree that somewhere
between our current world population of 7 billion people and a trillion people,
the world population will have to stop growing. So, if we have to
stop growing at some point, why not do it sooner rather than later? Population
is not a Ponzi scheme, we can't have a large number of young relative to
old people forever, unless population increases in perpetuity.And
what about all of God's other creatures, it seems they aren't fairing
too well with human's taking up all of the earth's available
Kimber,Should you research a bit, you will learn that there is not
another state in the US that pressures a couple to have children, or to continue
to have even MORE children, than the one you are living in right now.One
finds young couples extremely stressed out when they are not able to conform to
the pressures put upon them to go out and replenish as they have been admonished
@Ironhide"The other problem is, people have one or two kids and
lacking any fortitude, cannnot bare to have more. Pretty weak if you ask me.
I'm not saying every family should have 6 kids but 2? "Yeah, you go right on ahead and tell that to my mom who gave birth to 11 and
10.5 lb babies for her two...
Shorter editorial: We're living longer, so we need more young people to
take care of us. What happened to the mantra of personal responsibility?
I can't conceive of a situation where the editorial board isn't
thinking "we need more babies" because you can never stabilize the
population under the suggested ratio of young to old people.
I have been happy to socialize with many different types of families, (large,
medium and small). I love children, but my family is small. This isn't be
choice, it just is. I have been disappointed a number of times in my life as to
how people are judged as to things that are not in their control. If people
desire large families and they have the resources to care for them (whether born
naturally or adopted) I admire them greatly. But often in our world there are
people that have children with no thought as to how they will care for them and
the children suffer. The advances made in this world that are spoken about in
this article should also include the fact that people can now make a choice as
to what is right for them in their lives (large or smaller families). They can
then hope that they can find a way to accomplish that goal. And if the
unexpected in life doesn't allow them their goals, may they find happiness
in their life anyway. The amount of children in their family shouldn't
Have you mentioned this to all those starving people, living in the worse
conditions imaginable, throughout our world?
Completely wrong. The world's population needs a healthy balance. There are
currently far too many people consuming far too few resources.
Overpopulation is not a problem? What about the billon dollar pipeline from
Lake Powell, which by the way is verging on being empty because of the demand of
population? What about Nevada wanting to tap into Utah aquifer because they
don't have enough water for their population? What about the consumption
of unreplaceable natural resources, such as petroleum. What about the melting
ice shield in Antarctica, and melting glaciers in Alaska because of emission of
green house gases? If the population was 10% of what it is now, most of these
problems would be manageable. Is anything going to be left for future
generations? It does not appear so.
dI am torn on this subject. On one hand, I am glad that human beings are being
more thoughtful about having children. On the other, it is difficult not to
consider why young people are not having kids. In my view it is selfishness and
immaturity. "I want to spend my money on me and do fun things. Who wants to
have the responsibility and miserable life of a parent being shackled to a
screaming, whiny, slobbery, fun sucker. They hamper my time, my freedom to do
what I want, when I want. Who would not only want that but pray for it and
cherish it?" The context of multiple conversations I have had with women in
my office. The other problem is, people have one or two kids and lacking any
fortitude, cannnot bare to have more. Pretty weak if you ask me. I'm not
saying every family should have 6 kids but 2? Maybe my view is skewed because I
know so many amazing people who want kids and can't.
This is a pretty simplistic analysis. We haven't sapped the earth's
resources yet and the standard of living across the world has continued to
increase, therefore we can go on increasing population forever. That argument
would not have passed muster in my PhD program. As a matter of fact, I do not
think it would have passed muster in my undergraduate coursework.
The ultimate weapon in the competition for survival is the number of people you
control. The main control over a person starts with his parents. It
is likely that the religious fervor over the creation of new life, procreation,
was born in the desire to increase the fold. Offspring usually become vassals
of the parents associations automatically with no effort from the tribe, clan,
Seems like Countries that have a high starvation rate have low population
density. In Africa corrupt government and way of life has kept some people from
enjoying an abundant life. Interesting the same people that criticize, drilling
and mining, and cars, tractors and combines that produce are food are concerned
about the population.I had textbooks that all they talked about was
how bad it would be with overpopulation. Compared animal carrying capacity.
However no animal grows it's own food and causes other plants and animals
to breed so they can eat food. All based on instinct. Humans grow there own
food and know how to have much food on less land. Hong Kong, Japan and England
are dense, yet no one is starving.Seems like people like Robert
Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich when there prophecies failed just covered them
up. India is dense yet fewer people are starving over there now. Voluntary
human extinction movement think we need to die out. See a house no one lived
in, or where no people have been after human care. Does not look good.
"...There is evidence, such as a report from the Barna Group, a research
organization in California, that Christians feel a greater responsibility to
solve global poverty than nonbelievers...."The Barna Group is an
evangelical Christian polling firm based in Ventura, California."...There is reason to believe this extends to believers of other faiths,
I really don't believe my eyes after reading this piece. We need to have
bigger families so that the average age of the population doesn't climb?
That because poverty and hunger rates world wide have fallen that we can support
billions more on the planet? That our global resources are infinite?I would never advocate forced population control. That is wrong. However, to
avoid looking at the vast poverty and hunger that still exists on the planet is
bizarre thinking. There are hungry people in this country! With our vast
productivity, we still don't do a very good job of feeding the world.
Encouraging family is all well and good, but to encourage large families is poor
policy. Tax breaks that pay for personal fecundity reduces a treasury that is
lacking to pay current or past bills. (if you can afford 'em, have
'em. If you can not don't.)As a general rule, societies
with education and affluence self limit population growth by choice. Women have
family planning decision making. Poor, ill educated societies have large unfed
families throughout most of the world. I prefer the former method.
As one who studies water issues in the West, I can say that we're in for
some troubled times as our population doubles in the next two decades. If our
water supplies remain the same (or decrease as climatologists predict), our
children and grandchildren are going to experience significant problems.One of the proposals that states are considering is "toilet to
tap" water resources -- where states will take raw sewage and treat it for
re-use. It will cost billions -- taxpayers picking up the bill. Yes,
we'll have more taxpayers to cover the cost of providing this basic
necessity -- but it will consume significant energy to process the sewage,
guzzling our dwindling coal resources in Utah and other fossil fuels throughout
the West. The problem with using fossil fuels is that too guzzles
water (steam to make the electricity), so we're going to need to tap
additional water supplies just to provide the power to treat the sewage for our
survival.Yes, the Des News can wax philosophically about the wonders
of overpopulation, but for those of us actually working on solving the future
resource needs of that overpopulation, we're facing a grim future.
So according to one of the linked articles, world population in the 1800's
was 1 billion; it was 3 billion by the 1960's; and just 50 years later it
reached 7 billion. And the conclusion is there have been too few births? And necessity is not the mother of invention. Population size is. And
the most effective way to fight poverty is not to educate and empower women, but
to laden women with even more mouths to feed and, presumably, a different kind
of religion than the one they currently practice.Right. IMO, this is another example of religion hijacking the thought process to
further its own survival.
A very short sighted view of over population IMVHO.
And who is it that are spreading the lies of overpopulation and growing world
Yes, it’s widely believed “that overpopulation is a looming problem
destined to sap the planet’s resources . . . " That’s because it
is, and NO, reality does not tell a “different story.”Reality says human beings compete for resources, and concentrations of human
beings, like too many rats in a cage, cause conflict.BTW, do you
know why Concentration Camps are called concentration camps? It’s because
large numbers of people are concentrated in one location, like unhappy
sardines.To suggest that a huge population encourages innovation is
somewhat naïve. Truly great minds have done their best work in relative
obscurity and isolation, or among small groups of dedicated people working
toward a common goal. Newton went rural to avoid the Black Plague, and came up
with the Theory of Gravity while inventing calculus. Einstein worked in a
patent office, while dissecting Brownian Motion and dreaming up the Theory of
Relativity.A large concentration of people doesn't spur
innovation.Why do you think China imposed its one-child policy over
30 years ago? BTW, have you noticed what an ascendant power China has become
since then?Facts do NOT support the author’s premise.
"What can the world do about this trend?"And the solution
according to the DN?Govt policies that encourage marriage and
families.Govt policies that include tax breaks for encourage large
families.Govt Policies that support religious freedom.Shocked,
I say. SHOCKED. I just never saw that coming.
"...and that human ingenuity has been and will continue to be the key to
solving a host of ills that once seemed to loom large." This is a statement
of faith only. But you will not endorse ingenuity to control greenhouse gas
emissions. Your position is inconsistent. Here is the dilemma.
Population growth globally has been spurred by the tapping of carbon based
fuels, especially coal. Burning coal has caused the liberation of heretofore
sequestered carbon, which is heating the atmosphere, threatening the viability
of human life over the next 200 years. Even if organizations such as yourself
were consistent it's going to be difficult for carbon re-sequestration to
work because that technology is in its infancy and growing populations require
more and more energy. Population growth requires more and more coal and
petroleum burning, and such allows for more population, a feedback loop.Your theology requires you to think the population can grow without
limits, but it just isn't so, even with ingenuity.