One World

18) Global Family Planning

Posted 29th April 2016

"Till we find our place on the path unwinding"  

Yesterday I began watching a BBC DVD called 'Earth'. This feature-length documentary gives cinematic views of wildlife around the World, and talks of how their habitat and way of life is being increasingly threatened by climate change and direct human activities. There were upsetting scenes of lions attacking elephants, a cheetah catching a baby antelope, and a wolf catching a baby caribou. Mercifully, the scenes ended before the eating began. I thought how awful it is that there is so much suffering in the animal kingdom. But there's a dilemma, I realised. Left unchecked, perhaps herbivores would continue to reproduce until they begin to eat vegetation at a rate that cannot be replenished. That is, their numbers might become unsustainable by the natural environment. If this were to happen then maybe their food supply would become exhausted and there would be massive rates of mortality, and perhaps even extinction. Pond algae can grow rapidly in ponds where there is an abundance of nutrients, spread out across the whole pond, then it and other pond life dies because the populous algae starves the pond of oxygen. Perhaps if there were an algae eating animal in the pond then the 'controlled' algae would survive indefinitely. Predators and prey species survive to this day because such a brutal equilibrium has been found over the ages. The prey numbers are controlled by the predators, and so do not grow in sufficient numbers to extinguish themselves through vegetation depletion, and the predator numbers are controlled by the availability of prey they can catch. Many individual prey die violently, whilst many individual predators starve or die in territorial disputes. However, overall, both species types continue through the generations by this bloody and cruel balancing act.

So what has the latter brief discourse on natural history to do with modern humans? Well, there is a similarity between man and the other animals. Up to about a hundred years ago in the United Kingdom, many families were very large by today's standards. However, there was also a high rate of infant mortality. There were also diseases like tuberculosis, cholera, typhus etc. that claimed many lives of all ages. These diseases are now curable, and family numbers are now smaller through ease of access to contraception. Further, continuing up to the present day, people prey on one another and are preyed upon in the sense that they win or lose in the struggle for resources. There are some people who enjoy huge wealth while other people starve. It is often stated that there is far too many people in the World, and that is why there is a lack of resources, thus pitting brother against brother.

Well, in the present brutal system where each person represents a negative impact on the environment, contributes to climate change, requires resources from dwindling supplies etc. then yes, there are too many people. But the present system is stupid. For example, people are incentivised to extract as much fossil fuels as possible and then release combustion emissions into our thin layer of precious atmosphere. It rewards the most misanthropic of individuals and companies with great wealth, whilst inflicting crushing poverty on the most vulnerable. As a whole, the World is a horrible place ... at present.

However, in a future civilisation where all people are organised to act cooperatively to do what is best for all sentient beings for all time to come, I wouldn't be surprised if there is room for many more times the present population. In such a civilisation, people would be making a positive impact on the Earth: helping one another and other species, only using clean renewable energy, acting as part of a harmonious global body in intelligent (not brutal) equilibrium with the planet. In such a civilisation there may be scope for people to have large families again, if they so choose. Except, this time the infant mortality rate will be minimal. But even in this future civilisation there is a limit on population size. This limit is set at the optimum population size for the planet.

The optimum population size is such that there is enough people to manage the Earth and care for all her sentient beings, but not so many as to be indefinitely unsustainable or negatively impact on humanity or other species types. Therefore, for individuals who do not want to get pregnant or when the global population has reached its optimum size, contraception is required. If the global community are fully educated in the reasons for the necessity to maintain an optimum global population, I suspect they will be willing to accept limits placed on their fertility in the event of that number being reached.

Presently the contraceptive pill must be taken by the woman every day, it takes a while to become effective when first taken, it may have side effects, and may be ineffective if she takes antibiotics.

Future contraception may be developed to maximise reliability and convenience to the user. For example, two complimentary pills could be developed:-

· The red pill - this renders the user infertile and countermands the blue pill (described below). It need only be taken once. As confirmation, a red mark appears on a part of the user's body, say the wrist. This is taken before puberty to prevent accidental conceptions.

· The blue pill - this renders the user fertile and countermands the red pill. It need only be taken once. As confirmation, a blue mark appears on a part of the user's body, say the wrist. As soon as the woman achieves her planned pregnancy she is advised to take the red pill to prevent future accidental conceptions.

Alternatively, babies could be conceived and brought to term in an artificial environment. Whilst the child would have the sperm and egg donors as its natural parents, this process would ensure a safe development environment and spare the mother the discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of childbirth.

You may disagree with contraception on moral or religious grounds - but consider the pond algae discussed above. When it began its life on the pond it was free to 'go forth and multiply' - but to continue this regime when its environment became saturated spelled disaster for the colony as a whole. I presume the Bible did not mean for humanity to become so numerous as to exhaust their planet of resources and bring about their extinction. Rather, that once man has fully populated the Earth then they must learn to become masters of all living things, including themselves - which means optimising their numbers for the benefit of all living things in a kind way.

It is far kinder that conception is prevented than a baby be born to an over-populated world, or an embryo or fetus be cut up and dragged piece by piece out of its mother's womb.

Finally, returning again to the issue of cruelty suffered by animals in the wild. Maybe if man were in sufficient numbers and distribution around the world, and with the help of advances in science and technology, then all animals could be protected and live happy and satisfying lives without the threat of starvation or a violent death. Maybe man will take up the task of being stewards of creation, conquer the Earth, that is, gain understanding so that they can care for nature effectively. You wonder what is the meaning and purpose of human life? Maybe it's to use their intelligence to help ALL sentient Earth beings who cannot take care of themselves, which includes caring for their environment. To be caring masters of all living things.

Maybe then the lion will lie down with the lamb.

"The World for once in perfect harmony with all its living things"  

___________________________________________

'Family planning' Image at top of page from http://healthylnb.com/healthandhappy/why-is-family-planning-important/