Questions Arise as Nation Reaches
300 Millionth Person
By Royce Fincher
Op-ed piece in the Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 15, 2006
Growing up in America, China and India seemed beyond salvation given their population masses. Now, the Census Bureau projects the United States will join them this week as the third country in world history to exceed 300 million. No other industrialized nation has charted such growth for itself.
It took the U.S. more than 100 years to reach its first 100 million in 1915. Now, our population has tripled within the lifetime of some Americans. We grew in 52 years to a population of 200 million in 1967, and only 39 years later we’ve reached 300 million today. Within another 37 years, we are projected to pass 400 million.
Such growth carries inescapable change. Traffic congestion is obvious, and living space is at a premium and expensive. One cannot but think of the local controversy over traffic, housing and other impacts of the projected expansion UC Santa Cruz plans in its effort to accommodate population–driven student increases.
Less obvious but equally real are population’s impacts on water supplies and quality, forest and air health, coastal and fisheries conditions, habitat for wildlife, etc. We connect the dots on other impacts only infrequently. For instance, each Congressional District represents 690,000 citizens now, versus 230,000 in 1915—perhaps suggesting why so much Congressional campaign fund-raising seems necessary to counter voter apathy. There are other impacts that we can foresee only dimly, if at all.
Note, too, that about the time we pass 400 million, world population will have swollen to 9 billion—a 50 percent increase from the 6 billion mark we passed in 1999. The scale is overwhelming. If out of human compassion we brought as immigrants into this country the entire world’s excess population growth, their number would exceed our population in about four years. Your basic fifth–grade student knows enough math to realize these numbers cannot be sustained indefinitely. Neither he nor we know how that growth will come to a halt, but halt it must. Will it be havoc and human misery following, in the language of biologists “overshoot” in the planet’s carrying capacity? Or will there be, in the language of the economists, a “soft landing?”
The economists may be our problem. They worry about support for Social Security and Medicare for an aging population. Noting that half of our last 100 million consists of immigrants and their children, Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson in a recent Sentinel article October 7 praises them for the vitality of their economic contribution even as he finds serious concerns regarding energy, water, the environment and conflicting interests of immigrants.
Economists look narrowly at such things as GDP and per-capita income as if everything else stayed the same while these were advancing. Everything else will not stay the same. We are reminded of the law of unintended consequences, that we cannot do just one thing. It is as if our only concern must be finding others to maintain our Social Security and Medicare benefits without regard to larger societal costs–diminishing resources, deteriorating infrastructure, global warming, loss of biodiversity and other ills left for our children. It rings of a pyramid scheme that someday will surely collapse.
Just know that one species—us—cannot grow so rapidly without other species and our own way of life being impacted. So–called smart growth is oxymoronic. There is no environmental or social problem that is made better by increasing numbers of people.
Take Action
One year after California voters rejected Proposition 73, a parental notification mandate, extreme right–to–life groups are attempting to win passage of a virtually identical measure—Proposition 85—in November. Their anti–choice strategy is simple: Nibble away, eventually outlaw all abortions, and eliminate choice.
Parental notification laws may seem like a good idea, but in the real world they don’t work. Under Proposition 85, scared, pregnant teens who can’t talk to their parents because they fear violence or abuse at home would be forced by law to navigate a crowded court system and appear personally before a judge. These vulnerable teens don’t need a judge; they need counseling and medical care without delay.
On November 7 vote No on Proposition 85.
Nominations Committee
Population Connection — Monterey Bay Chapter
Pursuant to its appointment by the Board on October 5, 2006, the nominating committee of Pat Smith, Amelia Koenig, Dan Doxtator and Royce Fincher met and nominated the following for offices in the organization for the next year, as follows:
Chair – Linda Brodman
Vice Chair – Royce Fincher
Secretary – Maydene Fisher
Treasurer – Kaye Beth
Elections will be held on December 7 at our next board meeting. All members welcomed. If interested in attending, call Linda Brodman at 462–4041.
Reduce Population!
The species you save may be your own.
| 
