A friend of mine thinks that global population is not out of control and that there are plenty of natural resources for everyone on this planet. The problem is that there are a greedy few who monopolize resources for themselves. Therefore, all of us “good” people should just keep right on over-reproducing in order that someday we might outnumber our oppressors and then by sheer mass unseat them. I am speaking in hyperbole rather than quoting directly for purposes of making a point.
Whereas, as a former globe trotter, the population realities that I have seen with my own eyes paint a different picture altogether.
I have seen dying coral reefs, erosion, and the shanty towns that produce this effect, complete with untreated sewage. The effect is nothing short of an infestation of humanity. I have seen squatters living in garbage dumps and all matter of Juarez-style maquiladoras.
In degraded camps of former farmers and peasants, the families compete with each other for territory by over-reproducing and thereby poisoning each others’ chickens, pigs, and children with their sewage or otherwise producing a diseased, contamination effect to include Hepatitis and other food and water-born illnesses. The survivors of such a system clearly have superior immunity but by sheer malnutrition suffer from stunted growth, reduced cranial size, and damage to their own genome. They are never going to be great thinkers or philosophers no matter what form of “education” suffered upon them.
The toxic wars that one family wages on another family for purposes of gaining territory and perhaps future economic advantage is like a system of competing anemone colonies with the specialized warrior classes at the thin red line of genetic demarcation stinging and poisoning each other. The colony with the most poison-resistance and most toxic venom is thus able to command increasing territory. How evolved.
I can’t even blame the Catholic Church for this phenomenon. Rather, it would seem, that as usual, giving poor women economic choices beyond simple motherhood always results in a reduction in population, which means, cleaner water, less mountaintop stripping (for purposes of fast-squatter’s-rights agriculture), less erosion, less crime, and fewer malnourished genetically compromised children growing up to fish through coral and otherwise devastate estuaries of “low hanging fruit” until the population of food sources are eliminated while the population of children increases.
Charitable efforts to “feed the world” usually amount to nutritional dearth and even obesity while not actually correcting malnourishment. Please see my other writings on the subject here:
Of course, in overpopulated marginal areas, every once in a while a tidal wave/mudslide/epidemic thins everyone out. How is this type of suffering and carnage deserved by the innocent child victims? Obviously, I am not a Malthusian.
Meanwhile, in the west, birth rates are dropping precipitously. Perhaps in our shrinking world, the effects of overpopulation reach around the globe.
Food for thought: Sometimes the effect manifested by population decline can be used to identify the cause.
The Return of Patriarchy
Some early hunter-gatherer societies may have also limited population growth by giving women high-status positions. Allowing at least some number of females to take on roles such as priestess, sorcerer, oracle, artist, and even warrior would have provided meaningful alternatives to motherhood and thereby reduced overall fertility to within sustainable limits.
As more and more Western women are choosing these sorts of roles (albeit largely on an informal or individual basis), it would seem to me that a sociological underpinning might well be perceived overcrowding, limited opportunities for their children, or otherwise a lack of a fulfilling life ahead for those children. In my view, anyone who willfully reproduces knowing full well that the prospects of their progeny are dim is committing child abuse or—at the least—a narcissistic objectification of their children as economic tools with which to garner economic support from another party (the father, in-laws, the state, etc.).
However, if prospective parents have a business or apprenticeship that the children can grow into or otherwise are providing a means to make a living directly or indirectly, and to lead a fulfilling, full-fledged life including love, philosophy, and reasoning, those children are being born into a sustainable environment and therefore, reproduction is a sensible and moral choice. Whereas, expecting “society” with all the pathology that implies to support one’s children is to voluntarily abdicate personal responsibility for them. That is also—in my view—child abuse, otherwise known as Communism.
More from the same article:
Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options — be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children — has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.
Therefore, perhaps a sustainable model for society is to offer women all of these choices. Obviously, demonizing patriarchy would be a self-fulfilling suicide for society, along with the resulting matriarchy by default or design. However, is there room in our world for the acceptance and glorification of both paths? Perhaps this is the key to sustainable development rather than boom-and-bust stock market system monopolization, leading to extreme wealth inequality, as well as genome degradation and lack of genetic diversity in all populations regardless of whether there is population growth.
However, it would seem today that secular Feminism is being promoted worldwide like a religion (see https://caprizchka.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/planetismovaism/) along with all the stinging devolved anemone behavior of poor people. Degrading masculinity is genetic suicide, cultural suicide, and productivity suicide. Where will it all lead? Somehow I don’t think it will be pretty.