Non-White Children Bad For World's Future?
The 'agenda' revealed … overpopulation really means too many non-white and too many poor children.
Too many of us assume that poor countries, especially poor non-white countries desperately need help controlling population. The language used in persuading us that the world is overpopulated is "nice", it's "factual", and it's misleading.
The article below presents a different view, and yes we know the headline is provocative. Why use it? We think that as Christians a little provocation is a healthy thing. If you would like to pursue the issue, on both sides, visit these related links:
The original report this article is commenting on:
A site commenting on US population control funding:
A personal view of the effect and purpose of population control funding from Kenya:
From a personal point of view at Domestic-Church.Com, we can well believe that population control funding is misused on a global scale. Although we are (my husband and I) white, we have been poor, very poor. In that period of poverty we found that the health professionals we dealt with had no moral qualms whatsoever in deciding that we should have no more children: we have experienced first-hand doctors and nurses trying to get a sign-off on a form permitting the doctor to sterilize the mother, either while in labor or just after delivery, without telling us what was on the form, as well as many other anti-child, anti-poor tactics.
This has happened more than once, and was done by professionals who knew it was against our wishes. Having experienced this kind of human rights abuse here in Canada we feel confident that the whole population control movement is seriously flawed, does not respect human rights, does not respect women, does not respect family and is deeply anti-Christian.
Running a website is a fascinating exercise. More than once we have been challenged on the article below, as though it would give Christians a "bad-name", as though to question overpopulation was itself un-Christian. Based on our own personal experience we believe the exact opposite: that to support most of these population control efforts is anti-Christian. These little snippets are here to get a conversation going: if you have a comment either way, we'd love to hear from you at email@example.com.
With its "1998 World Population Overview and Outlook for 1999," the Population Institute seems hell-bent on painting a very ugly picture for the future of mankind. This report is deceptive. It emphasizes less-important facts while ignoring more-important facts.
Consider that the Population Institute says that 130 million babies were born during 1998. They fail to acknowledge that this is a five million per year reduction compared to 1985-1990.
The Population Institute claims that these 130 million births have resulted in an addition of 78 million people to the earth's population, but this too is a reduction from the 87 million annual increases during 1985-1990.
According to the report, each year ten million children die before the age of five, but overlook that the UN has established that eight million of these deaths could be prevented for about eight million dollars worth of medicines, vaccines, vitamins or antibiotics (less than one percent of the money now spent by developed nations to pay for abortive birth control distributed to developing nations).
Instead of using resources to assist those in need, organizations like the Population Institute appear to be decidedly against anything but destroying needy human beings. The solution to poverty in developing nations is not to be found in abortion and sterilization; the family in need requires concrete training in providing for the family, not destroying it.
Instead of complaining about "food deficit" countries, the Population Institute should focus on the UN statement that "the world as a whole faced no major constraints in increasing food production by as much as necessary to meet the growth of effective demand," and the sixty percent increase in food production per person in developing countries.
Our problems do not lie in a large population but rather in ineffective ways of helping those in need. We know that we actually pay US farmers not to grow food in this country, so perhaps the Population Institute should focus on ways of distributing food and other needs to the less fortunate … not ways of getting rid of the less fortunate.
A recent public radio program in Canada called "Super Species" hosted by Dr. David Suzuki has been examining and presenting a bleak view of the current condition of the world's environment. During the latest episode of the show, it was stated that in order to support the existing world population at the lifestyle of the West, we'd need another 5 Earth's worth of resources. The 'obvious' conclusion was then made - we need fewer people or we're going to ruin the world. Why not change the life style of the West?
Return to Vindication Page.