POPULATION

by Paul Bond
©December 2000

Nbond@bigpond.net.au

With the emerging science of the devastating effects of over-population, there are many that remain complacent and skeptical that their current lifestyle may require adaptation, even eradication.

Let us peek into the planetary record that we may view the historical truth, and plot a more sustainable future.

"Human society is controlled by a law which decrees that the population must vary directly in accordance with the land arts and inversely with a given standard of living. Throughout these early ages, even more than at present, the law of supply and demand as concerned men and land determined the estimated value of both. During the times of plentiful land-unoccupied territory-the need for men was great, and therefore the value of human life was much enhanced; hence the loss of life was more horrifying. During periods of land scarcity and associated overpopulation, human life became comparatively cheapened so that war, famine, and pestilence were regarded with less concern.

When the land yield is reduced or the population is increased, the inevitable struggle is renewed; the very worst traits of human nature are brought to the surface. The improvement of the land yield, the extension of the mechanical arts, and the reduction of population all tend to foster the development of the better side of human nature.

Frontier society develops the unskilled side of humanity; the fine arts and true scientific progress, together with spiritual culture, have all thrived best in the larger centers of life when supported by an agricultural and industrial population slightly under the land-man ratio. Cities always multiply the power of their inhabitants for either good or evil.

The size of the family has always been influenced by the standards of living. The higher the standard the smaller the family, up to the point of established status or gradual extinction.All down through the ages the standards of living have determined the quality of a surviving population in contrast with mere quantity. Local class standards of living give origin to new social castes, new mores. When standards of living become too complicated or too highly luxurious, they speedily become suicidal. Caste is the direct result of the high social pressure of keen competition produced by dense populations.

The early races often resorted to practices designed to restrict population; all primitive tribes killed deformed and sickly children. Girl babies were frequently killed before the times of wife purchase. Children were sometimes strangled at birth, but the favorite method was exposure. The father of twins usually insisted that one be killed since multiple births were
believed to be caused either by magic or by infidelity. As a rule, however, twins of the same sex were spared. While these taboos on twins were once well-nigh universal, they were never a part of the Andonite mores; these peoples always regarded twins as omens of good luck.

Even in the twentieth century there persist remnants of these primitive population controls. There is a tribe in Australia whose mothers refuse to rear more than two or three children. Not long since, one cannibalistic tribe ate every fifth child born. In Madagascar some tribes still destroy all children born on certain unlucky days, resulting in the death of about
twenty-five per cent of all babies."

Of course, for a post-modern society deprived of the scaffolding effects of the long historical climb of civilization from the primordial soup to the current technological age, this history would be shocking; even unbelievable. Yet, it is nevertheless true. Our denial propensities, being what they are, prevent the majority from seeing clearly these truths. A recent paper "Carrying Capacity Revisited" is worth a read:

http://www.dieoff.org/page13.htm

So what is the solution? Well you might ask. The real answer is leadership based on wisdom, not polls nor lies and deceit. We already have plenty of that. So where do we find that leadership? From the business community, governments, religions, academia? Where?

Here is an insightful question I posed to a group of young graduates in Hawaii in the fall of 1997: "If you were asked to vote for a Global Leader, who would you be happy to vote for?" Their voices were silent. One of the more progressive thinkers said this. "I don't even know of one person I would feel comfortable nominating, let alone voting for."

What does that tell us if this young group is representative of the mores? We need urgent help. And now I say again, "the kingdom of God is at hand."