It's well recognized that environmental degradation is not just dependent on the number of human beings, but also the amount they consume. In searching for ways to lessen humanity's footprint, it's commonly argued that developed countries should decrease their relentless consumption of resources by toning down their materialistic lifestyles. At the same time, poor nations should curb their high population growth rates.
A very important factor is lost in this polemic. Unappreciated is that the United States is not only the most affluent country in the world, but it is also the third most populous with over 300 million souls and growing robustly at 1% per year. Thus, America needs to address both sides of the equation by cutting consumption and curbing its population growth.
US politicians are unaware of the population issue, and wouldn't touch it if they were. A few local groups, however, are beginning to recognize the importance of smaller family sizes. The e-zine "onlychild.typepad.com" is an excellent resource that not only encourages one-child families but also offers advice, information and links for only children and their family and friends.
Having a smaller family can be a difficult decision, but an enormously important one.
Demographers at the United Nations and the US Census Bureau project that the world's population will reach a peak of over nine billion by about 2050. That's an increase of about three billion, or 50%, over the present population.The situation looks grim. Peak oil is at hand and oil prices are over $100 per barrel. Grain production has not met grain consumption in seven of the last eight years, and now will fall even shorter as it is diverted for ethanol-fuel manufacture. If we're having trouble now, how will we possibly cope with another three billion people?The nub of the problem is that almost all of this growth will come in the developing world. Their growth rates are much higher than those of developed, industrial countries, who are near to stabilizing their populations. This is a recipe for international disaster. Poor countries, especially in Africa, are already struggling. How can they possibly survive with massive population increases?As Lester Brown says, "failing states are a sign of failing society." Tensions between rich and poor nations will escalate. Terrorism will become rampant. There is a desperate need for programs to help poor nations, not only with family planning programs but also to lift them out of the quagmire of poverty.Yet the world is a topsy-turvy place. The United States has imposed a "global gag" rule that prevents the US from providing family planning programs to poor countries, and also pressures other nations to follow suit. It encourages population growth in countries that cannot offer their young people a decent future. No better policy could be invented to promote future terrorism and societal breakdown.We need to completely rethink how foreign aid is disbursed. We need to think and act outside the box. How can we devise programs that work in partnership with and are welcomed by the receiving countries? That are effective in empowering and educating women? That effectively but humanely lower birth rates?I welcome your ideas.
It's well recognized that environmental degradation is not just dependent on the number of human beings, but also the amount they consume. In searching for ways to lessen humanity's footprint, it's commonly argued that developed countries should decrease their relentless consumption of resources by toning down their materialistic lifestyles. At the same time, poor nations should curb their high population growth rates. 
