 |
|
|
| Shared Idea |
 |
| Population Limitations
| Trump’s Executive Effects
| Population is the underlying issue regarding the future of the human race. Environmental issues gain the attention of the media, but even if they are resolved on a per capita basis, an increasing population makes those efforts futile. Political pressures, housing, food supply, clean water and a multitude of other issues impose on humanity and the world in which we live. They can be resolved by either increasing the death rate through means such as war, famine or disease (which has often been true throughout history) or by decreasing birth rate. The latter should be recognized as preferable, though it can follow either of two paths -- involuntary or voluntary means. I, for one, prefer the second choice.
|
| An overview of this topic is expressed on the website of the Population Media Center. "Conversations about overpopulation can quickly become controversial because they beg the question: Who exactly is the cause of the problem and what, if anything, should be done about it? . . . Each human being has a legitimate claim on a sufficient and fair amount of Earth's resources. But with a population approaching 8 billion, even if everyone adopted a relatively low material standard of living like the one currently found in Papua New Guinea, it would still push Earth to its ecological breaking point. Unfortunately, the 'average person' on Earth consumes at a rate over 50% above a sustainable level. Incredibly, the average person in the United States uses almost five times more than the sustainable yield of the planet. . . . When we use the term 'overpopulation,' we specifically mean a situation in which the Earth cannot regenerate the resources used by the world's population each year. Experts say this has been the case every year since 1970, with each successive year becoming more and more damaging."
|
| In "Population Connection Research" in the June 2025 issue of Population Connection, Olivia Nater pointed out that "A statement about falling fertility rates being one of the biggest challenges facing our world received the lowest amount of agreement, with only 17% of total respondents strongly agreeing. Conversely, nearly half of the respondents (45%) said they were 'very' of 'somewhat' concerned about national population growth while slightly more than half (51%) were 'very' to 'somewhat' concerned about global population growth. Only 27% and 22% said they are 'not concerned at all' about national and global population growth, respectively, while 24% and 21%, respectively, said they are 'a little concerned.'"
|
| Some paths can allow more time to address this issue, but they are only stopgaps. An article by Margherita Bassi in the July/August 2023 issue of Discover noted "In a paper published in Nature in June 2024, scientists proposed that this seed collection could fortify modern wheat agriculture. Identifying genes within the collection that could increase modern wheat's resistance to pests and diseases, the research could help farmers feed the world's ever-increasing population." The critical aspects are the closing point of the message. The world's population continues to grow and this effort would only help address the problem. A counterpoint is noted in a book review by Laura Stark in the 26 June 2025 issue of Science. "Hunger was -- and remains -- the effect of slow violence deployed by powerful institutions in four ways: to eliminate inconvenient others, to force labor or debt, to reward or punish, or to earn profits. In all instances, hunger is an individual experience that is imposed upon people collectively."
|
| In an "Editor's Note" in the June 2025 issue of Population Connection, Marian Starkey stated "Given our typical challenges with getting earned media . . . we've been encouraged in recent months." In an article in late March in The New York Times, Lydia DePillis mentioned "An agenda that prioritizes large families makes plenty of people queasy. . . . the tactics required to raise birthrates can verge on authoritarianism, and believe that the consequences of population loss aren't as catastrophic as pronatalists make them out to be." In the May 2025 issue of Fortune, Beth Greenfield said "while most people want a small family, others feel unable to have more kids due to factors including affordability, the state of the world, and lack of social support for parents." Marian Starkey ended her note by stating "While pronatalists continue pressuring women to have more kids, we'll continue advocating for reproductive freedom for all and for a healthy planet to support humanity's future generations, whatever size they may be."
|
| Trump's executive actions are undermining the critical issues influencing the future of our world. As stated in a 23 January 2025 editorial in The Washington Post, "Climate is real. The world must find ways to produce a lot more energy that does not emit greenhouse gases. Trump's barrage of orders stands in the way of this objective. . . . stopping further development of offshore wind generation subverts the objective of ensuring America's energy supply. . . . Trump is hostile not only to climate change but also to foreign aid. By curtailing assistance for climate mitigation, America would abandon the affluent nations' still unfulfilled responsibility to assist less developed countries in decarbonizing. . . . To the extent that Trump ignores this challenge, he will increase the chance that a true emergency will occur."
|
| Elsewhere in the June 2025 issue of Population Connections, Olivia Nater reports that "Amid struggling economies and growing nationalism, many European countries are slashing their aid budgets and redirecting funding toward defense and domestic priorities. . . . further aid reductions compound an already devastating situation, with millions of the most vulnerable people being cut off from life-saving support as well as essential health and education programs. This blow to developing countries threatens peace and security at a global scale by exacerbating poverty, conflict, and mass displacement."
|
| As noted by Catherine Offord in "Without a Lifeline" in the 26 June 2025 issue of Science, "the project, known as USAID Integrated Nutrition, no longer exists. When it suspended foreign aid, Trump's administration issued a stop-work order forcing the program to halt operations. . . . Like the thousands of programs canceled via similar letters, USAID Integrated Nutrition, the administration determined, was 'not in the [U.S.] national interest.' Global health experts are still working to estimate the full impact of the collapse in U.S. aid funding on worldwide efforts to fight malnutrition."
|
| Offord pointed out at the end of this feature article that "what frustrates many involved with terminated projects is how quickly they have been forced to adapt. With some warning, government officials and aid workers say, people could have planned and tried to mitigate the impact on human lives. Instead, as everyone scrambles to adjust, there will inevitably be families, facing situations . . . that 'fall through the cracks' . . . ."
|
| Antiabortion stands likewise impact these fundamental issues. As Brian Dixon noted in Population Connections in March 2025, "Trump waited until the evening of Friday, January, to reinstate the Global Gag Rule, which blocks US health assistance to any overseas provider that has anything to do with legal abortions in their own country, even if they do so with non-US funds. . . .The policy, when in effect, as it has been under every Republican president since 1984, has caused clinics to shut down and outreach efforts to end. It has caused contraceptive shortages and dramatic increases in unsafe abortion. The evidence on the impact of the policy is clear: It violates human rights, undermines public health, and threatens global efforts to reduce poverty and protect the environment. . . . On January 28, [legislators] reintroduced the Global Health, Empowerment, and Rights (HER) Act . . . to eliminate the Global Gag Rule and prevent a future president from unilaterally reimposing it."
|
| I find that the issue was expressed well in the Beetle Bailey comic strip on 19 June 2025 by the sons of Mort Walker. General Amos T. Halftrack, Major Greenbrass and Chaplain Steinglass are drinking at the officer's bar. General Halftrack says "I heard today that by the year 2050 nine billion people will inhibit the earth." The major responds "Ha ha! You mean INHABIT!" To which, the chaplain counters "actually, you're BOTH right."
|
|
|
