S is for... Selfish Reproduction?

Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos


Read a horrible article yesterday from the New York Times, who have run a piece on China's one-child policy, featuring the story of Pan Chunyan who was kidnapped and forced into having an abortion by officials.

According to the 2010 national census, the average birthrate for a Chinese household is 1.181. The number is lower in cities and higher in rural areas. There are around 22 ways in which parents can get around the one-child rule- rural couples and ethnic minorities are allowed to have more kids, for example. But experts say the strict quota "remains among the so-called one-veto criteria for promotion and is about as significant a goal as maintaining stability or growing the local economy," and that the orders come from higher up in the government. Even when parents are ready to pay the $7,200 fine a third child warrants, officials will pressure or force mothers to have abortions to make sure "targets are met."

Horrid.

However, it did get me thinking about my own issues with the population problem we are currently facing. As a reductionist I am guilty of over-thinking and over-simplifying things. As a worrier, my reductionist perspective has been known to get the better of me, and I often find myself awake at night worrying about global issues. One thing I spend more and more time thinking about is whether, in the future, I could ever even justify having children? Let me explain...


In 1996 there was a 15 person per thousand net increase in global population (1.5%). The doubling time is the time required for a population to double its size. Based on the 1996 population increase figures, it would take 45 years (from that year) to double the earth’s population. If the population rate continues unchecked, in the year 2041 we will have twice the number of people on earth as we did in 1996. This is an astounding prediction.

Furthermore, incredible medical advances have helped humans live longer than ever. We have an abundance of older humans who in the past would have died at a much earlier age. Additionally, these same medical advances have helped us eliminate or lessen the effect of diseases which affect humans. Diseases which once were lethal to millions of people no longer have this type of virility. Therefore, adding to the increased birth rate of the world is the number of individuals living beyond what once was the norm. That means the death rate has significantly decreased. The combination of increased birth rate and decreased death rate is alarming.

Another factor to consider is that a large percentage of the world’s population currently is very young. It is believed that 33% of the population is under the age of 15..!! In 1998 there were 1000 million women of child-bearing age. This sets the stage for a massive population explosion in the near future (Owen et al. 73-74).

The problem is, the earth is only capable of sustaining a certain amount of life. Already we have stressed the planet to a breaking point. There are outbreaks of starvation constantly in less developed countries- so often that, unfortunately, we don't even pay attention to them anymore (we just spend money on the Olympics and that instead). As the population continues to rise, the supply of food will continue to dwindle. We can only produce a fixed amount of food with the resources which we have. The rising number of humans also necessitates further land for them to use as habitation. The more land used for us to live on, the less there is available for farming. It is a vicious circle which has no end if the population growth is not curbed.

Not to mention the rapid depletion of other rescources such as oil. We are not sustainable.

For those of you who haven't read Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot (and even those of you who have), I strongly urge you to watch the below video. If you didn't know, I love him, and that's a quote from the man himself up there ^ on my banner. Anyway, It's a chance to take 4 minutes and get some perspective...



So yeah, there's no where else we can go.

The real moral issue, I think, is that in terms of evolution, our purpose on the world is to procreate. To keep the chain going. My personal issue? Maternal instinct.

I really love children, and it is really important to me to have my own family one day. And yet, I'm torn by the fact that if everyone just has a child because they want to, or want to satisfy their maternal instincts, then there is going to be no future for generations to come. We will be our own failing as a species- we'll eventually die out due to lack of rescources. And that's a fact. If this is the case, is it not massively selfish of me to have a child, just because I feel I want to satisfy the urge? Or is this just my current perspective because I haven't found the right relationship yet and have some growing up to do?

I don't know. I'd like to know your thoughts.

Thing is, the stats from China's one-child policy are encouraging: Since 1979, experts at the National Population and Family Planning Commission of China say, the policy has prevented more than 400 million births in the country. China's population is currently at 1.34 billion, but if things had continued without the policy, the population would have been at least 1.7 billion by now! That's good news, right?!

I know that Pan Chunyan's story is completely abhorrent, and that statistics on infanticide in China are horrific and do seem inhumane. But the idea behind the policy is most humane, surely? It's about being able to progress as a species and to make our precious Pale Blue Dot last as long as possible...

I can't help but wonder if there's more that should be done to stop people having children so readily? Education is the key to this, I think. And also, way more money should be put into space exploration!! Not just 'cause I think it's cool and that, but hopefully, we'll be able to prove the multiverse theory correct and find another planet to eventually inhabit!!

I'm dreaming again...

Happy thoughts folks!

L.