WHAT’S THE POINT?
We have too many people on this planet. And we’re having too many babies. And we’re too focused on keeping everyone alive for as long as possible.
We should stop it. We should put the focus on the quality of the lives we have and enjoying them as much as possible.
As a society we have become so obsessed with controlling the life environment and in extending healthy living to everyone that we have banned smoking in public, at the beaches, at the parks, in restaurants and workplaces. We force parents to be hyperac-tively paranoid about the dangers posed to children riding a bike without a helmet.
We decree that people must wear seat-belts in cars so that should they be involved in an accident, they won’t perish. We demand that jet skiers wear life jackets and snowboarders under 18 wear helmets.
We spend billions of dollars on health care prevention campaigns, and drug abuse campaigns, and stopping smoking campaigns, all so that the people we have can live longer, better lives.
I think we should pull back on all that. We should let the controversial theory of Darwinism take over and let the stupid people die off. If people do things that cause their lives to end quicker, who are we as a society to say that it is wrong? If someone enjoys smoking today, let them keep smoking, it will only lead to their leaving the planet sooner and what’s so wrong with that?
Now I know that the argument against smoking is that “Their smoke invades my space and then I get cancer and die.” News flash: You’re going to die anyway. If you don’t like someone smoking around you, move, and feel confident that while they are hooked up to a respirator, gagging on their own fluids, you can be strolling down the boardwalk studiously avoiding the sun so that you won’t get skin cancer.
The other argument is that medical care for smokers and cancer victims is a huge financial drain on society — possibly. But their presence on the planet also is a drain on its resources. On balance, which is greater? I don’t know, but I think that we have more people than we need and are going to need for the foreseeable future, so if the people who don’t care about their health die off, what’s the loss?
Here are the statistics from the CIA Factbook: In the U.S. for every 1,000 people there are 14.14 births a year, that equals 4.2 million new U.S. citizens each year minus the ones that do not survive a year, which is approximately 27,000. We have a population decrease due to death of about 2.5 million people each year. At the end of the year, we have a net increase of 1.7 million people each year.
The Chinese, who long ago recognized that population is a major problem and have tried to limit their population growth, have 13.25 births per 1,000, and subtracting for their infant mortality they end up with 13.25 million new births each year. They lose 6.97 million people a year for a net population increase of 6.28 million new people annually.
India, the other sleeping giant on the world stage, has staggering numbers. With a birth rate of 22 per 1,000 they have 22 million new births each year, they lose 1.2 million of them in the first year, and that, combined with the death rate of 8.2 million people results in a population growth of 13.8 million people annually.
Those numbers reflect just the U.S. and the two largest population centers. Add in the rest of the world, and we have a very large population on the planet.
I think that it is wonderful that men like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are spending their fortunes on saving human life. Medical research is a fantastic thing. If I had cancer, diabetes, polio, or any number of other ailments I would want the cure. I don’t have a problem with curing diseases, I have a problem with the fact that as we find cures, life expectancies are growing, productivity is expanding,and we don’t need as many people.
With all the focus on global warming, and the blaming of carbon dioxide, and petrochemicals and the effects of man on the planet, who is saying anything about limiting our growth?
The politicians simply see that more people means more of a constituency, and more hands to shake, and get donations from.
We should let people smoke their brains out, eat to their heart’s content, drive without a seatbelt, and ride a bike without a helmet. Once we’ve told people about the dangers, it should be their choice to shorten their life.
We should stop trying to legislate good health for everyone, unless we also try to legislate population growth.We should be saying that contraception is a great idea. We should be in the forefront of limiting the birth rate.
The planet has huge resources, but as we all know, everything is limited at some point. The planet as a whole does not need more people. In the U.S. we are fast approaching 300 million people. It is thanks to efforts like the stop smoking campaigns, the cancer awareness efforts, the medical research that is done, and the huge boom in children each year that we have so many people. The problem is that we don’t need them, can’t afford them, and our economy is changing in such a fashion that there is less work for them.
More population is good and bad for an economy — it helps keep the Santa Monica land prices high but it also will lower income levels as more workers are competing for fewer jobs. (David Pisarra can be reached at dpisarra@pisarra.com or (310) 664-9969.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 18, 2006. Read the original PDF.