Population Control

[goldenchild17]

Okay, well I totally overstepped my paragraph per answer, but at this point it doesn't matter. Let me know what you think. What can I tweak, what do I need to completely restart? Thanks:
p.s. if you haven't noticed I completely ditched the liberal answer they are looking for . Maybe it'll hurt me. We'll see.

1. The advantages and disadvantages of population control in eyes of a democratically-elected Politician can vary depending upon which side of the fence the individual in question is playing for. For one politician it would be advantageous in that his constituents would support him in his efforts to protect the environment and provide a future for later generations. For many of the constituents it would also give them a reason to support practices such as abortion, euthanasia, birth control etc. However the very thing that is to his advantage would be also his disadvantage because in supporting such measures to control the population he would then lose support from many people who are against such an idea. Of course this would depend on how far he took it. If he restricted it to a practice such as birth control, then it might not be considered such a high price. However if he really wanted to reduce population growth in a major way he could go to the other extreme of infanticide, euthanasia, and forced child-limits (such as those in China). The advantage of supporting population control is that one can see a highly effective way to treat the problem of disappearing resources. But in doing this, he creates his disadvantage, many do not see such a practice as morally stable.

2.) A mother with a newborn child can see advantages to population control. Such a measure could provide her and her child with the provisions they need to survive which they otherwise might not have been able to get. She would be much more able to sufficiently support just the two of them, if more children are not to be had. As the population decreases due to the measures, the mother can see a brighter future for her child who will have less competition when (s)he grows up and has to provide for herself. On the other hand, when she looks at her child she realizes that her baby will not have the brothers and sisters that she grew up with. She realizes that as she holds her child, that she cannot support the deaths of millions of unborn babies just so that the rest can live comfortably. She is not able to accept that so many, unborn children and elderly alike have to be put to death, just so that the rest can be happy. No man should prosper because of another man’s suffering.

3.) A villager in sub-Saharan Africa might welcome methods of population control. Many in such a person’s situation are living at a mere existence level and there would be no way to feed all the extra children running around resulting from unprotected intercourse. These extra children are just extra mouths to feed and are taking up resources that should be left to those who work for them. However, from the other perspective, a villager such as our example will eventually age and become unable to care for himself, be unable to gather the food that he needs to live. At this time he is going to wish that he had children who could take care of him. With population control methods in place, he is able to feed himself for a time but not forever. If he had children he would initially have to give a little. Yet, before long his children will grow and be able to contribute to gathering resources for survival, many ready to help at quite a young age. These children will then be able to care for their father in his old age, just as he did for them when they were young.

4.) For a University of Arizona student living in the year 2050, if these population control methods are put into place today, he would be in a nice position as the population should already see a decrease. There will be less competition and more food and other supplies to go around for all of those who lived until then. Life would be looking good. Less people, no children for the student to look after or plan for after he graduates. He could put his money into savings. Or could he? There is one problem with this. Not only are there fewer young people coming along the way, but the population is now aging. As people get older and retire they will want to collect their social security checks. Who pays for that? The college student will pay for this for many years. With more and more seniors than ever, his taxes will continue to increase. You are bitter that you have to pay for their comfort. More and more of his fellow students feel the same way, until they’ve had enough and clamor for the institution of more euthanasia/assisted suicide practices to be enforced. It becomes a vicious cycle. Without the children coming behind them the pressure falls on fewer and fewer citizens to split the tax for government programs such as social security.

5.) Now for my perspective, although I think I may have given that away slightly in some of the above responses. I honestly cannot think of one worthy advantage that population control would bring to me. It is completely unnecessary and even harmful to the betterment of mankind. From an environmental standpoint, we still have resources available to us. If necessary we can drill in places that we would like not to, such as ANWR. This isn’t the ideal situation, but if the resources are available then we can use them. We are a smart people, we have been exploring alternative methods of energy usage and conservation for years. From solar panels to windmills to changing the lightbulbs in your house and keeping your car in tune, all of these things are ways that we can help conserve energy.

I do not believe that we would have been put on this earth if there were not the sufficient means for sustaining us during our time here, no matter how long. I think we have been given this earth for our use, not our abuse. I think many countries, especially the United States, have gotten far too carried away in its abuse of fossil fuels. There is absolutely no reason for us to be wasting as much as we are on many things that are, frankly, not that important.

I guess I can think of one advantage to population control and it is this, we will be able to keep our entertainments. We have everything a person could want: big screen tv’s, state of the art entertainment systems, you name it we’ve got it. Just imagine how much gasoline is being used in all of those NASCAR races. Think about how much food goes to waste in all of our restaurants, companies throwing away food that is no more than fifteen minutes old. Now, I’m not saying that any of these things, NASCAR and Burger King are bad things, not at all. But is it really worth it to kill unborn children through abortion, prevent young couples from starting a happy family because of birth control requirements, institute euthanasia/assisted suicide of those who happen to be a “drain on our society” at an old age, just so that we can continue to indulge in our pleasures? If so, then we as a society as far more gone than I could have ever imagined.

No, there are still many things that we can and must do before such an awful idea even comes into our minds. Use what we have more efficiently, cut back (notice I don’t say eliminate completely) on those pleasures in life that aren’t crucial for a happy life. Put our best scientists and researchers to work to find new and better sources of energy. I put my support fully behind any and all of these measures, but, being the oldest of nine children, support such practices as those that would eliminate happy families like mine, that I cannot do.