human rights vs. societies rights
(no name) ((no email))
Tue, 6 Dec 1994 18:25:06 EDT
Let me throw a monkey wrench into the discussion here. We have all
be drcrying the wonton killing of various subgroups (i.e. suti in
Indian women, female infanticide in the Yanamamo, etc.). In all these
issues we have been taking a very short term view of the situation, namely
the desire to improve the lives of those living now. `While this is a
noble cause, it has a significant long term effect.
Let's look for a minute at the WHO's work over the last 50 years to reduce
disease and improve living conditions worldwide. They have been remarkably
successful, with the effect that now more than 50% of the world's population
is under the age of 15, particularly in the third world. If the trend
continues as it has for the past 20 or so years, by the year 2040, we will
enjoy a world with 14-15 BILLION people, which will then double its
population within 5 years. By allowing countries to reduce diseases, and
improve living conditions without making any provisions for some form
of population controls, the UN and WHO have condemned most of the world's
population to severe overcrowding, starvation, and likely a very unpleasant
death. By insisting on the individual's right to procreate, we doom
the next generation or the one after that to a world where no one would
really like to live.
Even if the WHO insisted today on rigid birth control (say limiting
all people to having only 2 kids), we would still hit 14-15 billion
BEFORE THE POPULATION BEGINS TO SLOW ITS EXPONENTIAL GROWTH RATE!
These other societies we have been discussing have lived in some form
of equlibrium with their environments for much longer than our current
individualistic culture has attempted to reach some equilibrium (which
by the way it has not yet attempted)! Can we then say that our idea of
what constitutes human rights are reasonable, given the long term view?
food for thought