human population problems

[Meredith Lane]

Mary:
Warren Lamboy was the one who made the original statement about each
child being loved. I don't know whether he meant to imply that children
in large families are less loved (I rather doubt it)...instead, I think
what he (and certainly I) meant is that fewer children would each receive
more care and love *from society as a whole*. Children should be regarded
as a resource for the future. As with any economic argument, the scarcer
the resource, the more precious it becomes; the more abundant it is, the
more it is squandered (which is what I see happening in this society's
current disregard of the safety from gunfire, etc., for its children).

My point in teaching about population control is exactly derived from the
resource-use side of things: I emphasize that to have a child in this
society is to place a tremendous demand on natural resources, and that
it shouldn't be taken lightly, and certainly shouldn't be allowed to be
an "accident" (thus the condoms). Not only do "first world" people use
significantly more than their share of resources...in so doing they
become the envy of "third world" people, who in turn increase their
resource use to try to "keep up with the Joneses." I don't have a clue
about how to stop that completely human activity. So, my conclusion is
that if we can't reduce the *demand*, let's reduce the number of
*demanders*...in both worlds.

Otherwise, I couldn't agree more with what you have to say.

Meredith A. Lane                Curator, Division of Botany, KU Nat Hist Museum
2045 Constant Ave.                      Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Botany
Lawrence  KS  66047-3729        913/864-4493 or -7364  FAX: -5298 or -5294
                        UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
        mlane at ukans.edu  OR  mlane at kuhub.cc.ukans.edu