There are people suffering; famine in the horn of Africa, drought in Argentina, tsunami and earthquake in Asia, hurricanes Katrina and Rita in North America, landslides in South America. These are only the natural disasters from the last quarter of 2005. Human-caused disasters are much more severe and ongoing; orphans from wars, infanticide, disease from lack of medicine, AIDS and more.
The question is what can we do to help. I know we need four more planets like earth to sustain our lifestyles if we all live in my nearly modest lifestyle according to
Eco Footprints. So the issue lies in there being too many of us and too little resources. Also, the poor and helpless tend to produce more children and as a result double or triple their problems. How can we sustain ourselves without moving from Earth? Obviously, the answer lies in helping each other and reducing the population and not one or the other but both.
Limiting couples to one child has led to leaps and bounds of increase in female infanticide. Also, this has shifted demographic balance of male to female ratios. So, we know this rule is not a great idea. Also, it seems unfair that people in the present and future bear the brunt of carelessness of people from the past. Not being able to enjoy the pleasure of being surrounded by many grandchildren and children is a very high price to pay for being conscientious.
How about we use our biological features and combine forces to beat the odds and be happy? Lets all have one child only to replace us when we die. This solution will maintain the world population at the current number. But we already know from Eco Footprints above that we are seeing terrible deaths because of our overuse and lack of sharing the planet, which we need at least four of to survive. So this is only a short term solution. Lets rethink our policy then.
Men don't seem to be pyched about children as much as women. So lets change the rule so that one woman can have one child only. This is the same as the rule in China and we already know this doesn't work. But we cannot deprive the women of their motherhood, that would be inhumane; Let's make more changes.
What if we pair together one man and two women. That would be a huge sacrifice on the woman's part but when you weigh it against solving the world's problems, it might seems miniscule. This means that the man can experience fathering two children, one with each woman. And the women can both experience motherhood. Guess what the most beautiful thing is that upon death of all three the world will be one person less, since two beings will replace three. If one billion people do that, the world population will decrease by 333 million or 0.3 billion in one generation. If everyone decides to do that, it will still work because there are demographically more women than men in the world anyway, but some men will have to have more wives than two. I don't think men will complain about being with more than one woman. As for the woman, she makes this sacrifice of sharing a man in exchange for not letting other women see their children die from hunger and disease. Not only that, when there are lesser people and the same resources, everyone can drive an SUV, live in a townhouse and eat foods not grown locally.
The above description fits the word polygamy from the dictionary, don't let the word fool you, look at the concept and the changes the word can bring. Polygamy has been part of the social scene since the beginning of time in
every religion and region. During the last 50 years it has become a thing of the past.
UPDATE 02/28/06: A comment was posted by Zack on this post about there being more men than women in todays world by 0.02 according to the
CIA World Factbook. According to
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), "At least 60 million girls who would otherwise be expected to be alive are "missing" from various populations, mostly in Asia, as a result of sex-selective abortions, infanticide or neglect." Lets recalculate the ratio with these "at least" 60 million "missing" women;
Before 60 Million -> male 2,117,230,183 / female 2,066,864,970 = 1.02
After 60 Million -> male 2,117,230,183 / female 2,126,864,970 = 0.99
Voila! there are more women than men, whats mind boggling is that this "at least" 60 million estimate is from 2000 and the above population figures are from 2005. Add to this mix the fact that these 60 million women would have been producing more children too. Furthermore, add the fact that women are less vulnerable to fatal disease, live longer and survive their husbands more often.
I also looked for research to see if the X and Y chromosomes are in equal ratio in a man's sperm, but there is no research to this effect. It would be interesting to see if the X is more, less or equal; this would mathematically tilt the scales of probability.