There are 7.8 billion people in the world right now. Over 1 billion live in “multidimensional poverty,” according to World Vision. Their plan is to raise those billion souls out of poverty. A noble goal, except doing so will offset if not neutralize any gains in achieving a carbon-neutral world. The United Nations predicts the world population will continue growing and level out at 11 billion by 2100. Almost all of that growth will be in Africa, in a region that even now lacks the water, cropland, and natural resources to support the existing population. So, by 2100 it looks like there will be 4 billion people in horrific poverty or 1/3rd of the humans on earth.
Given that both raising people out of poverty and a growing total population dramatically increase energy demands (while all the whole world is striving for a better, more energy-intensive lifestyle), overpopulation is very much an issue when it comes to reversing climate change. Worse yet, almost all of that overpopulation is in the warm equatorial regions, global warming makes the life of poor folks there truly insufferable. Hence the very real prospect of “climate refugees” overwhelming the developed nations – beginning now.
The advent of robotics and Artificial Intelligence further complicates the overpopulation situation. Virtually every job that is repetitive in manufacturing will eventually be done by robots. AI has become so inexpensive, available to anybody via “the cloud,” that many telephone and service jobs are being delegated to AI systems – from the amazon help desk to virtually every major bank, even “Jennifer” at the auto dealer who responds to your inquiries and “Jack” at the online auto parts warehouse (he even has a photo and online profile). Many, many more of the most common jobs will be done by robots or AI. The pandemic has sped up this trend a great deal. Most of the jobs lost in 2020 will never return. When they do, they’ll require a higher skill level and extra training. This isn’t in the far future, people. It’s now! Forbes estimates that 85 million more jobs will be lost to automation in just the next four years.
For all the moral, ethical, and medical objections many people have to abortion, and to a lesser extent birth control in general; well, the logical thing to do as a society is to allow abortion and encourage birth control. Those who oppose the whole idea can be appeased with new rules: mandatory counseling for anybody who gets an abortion, double the counseling when they abort a second child, and “three strikes and you’re out” the third time: sterilization. Similar penalties for the men involved. Birth control is especially important in poor communities: the last thing they need is one more mouth to feed. What they do need is counseling on having children, rewards for having a small family. The whole world needs a one-child-per-family rule, starting yesterday. No exceptions, no waivers; just that – until no person lives in poverty, and every able-bodied person has a satisfying job.
The same argument can be made for homosexuality as for birth control: despite all the moral or other objections anybody might have, if it reduces overpopulation, it must be allowed. The one-child-per-family guidance should still be applied, perhaps a one-child-per-female rule for the GLBTQ community. Transgenderism? If it means no babies, nobody should complain. Those who so identify should be protected against discrimination. Nobody has to like the situation, we all just have to live with it – until the human population achieves an equitable balance with the natural world. Once people learn to control their sexual drive, and nobody has a child they cannot support 100% on their own income; well, folks can pick up where we left off with all our religious objections and Old Testament morality.
Where does religion fit into all of this? Or, more likely, where has morality and dignity gone? Who risks having unprotected sex when they live in abject poverty? Do they really want to have a child who lives the same miserable life as they do? What if their host nations sponsored mandatory workshops to educate people on birth control methods, giving the poor people all the tools and discipline necessary to avoid having unwanted children? There used to be many Catholic (religious) more schools around the world. Most of them are closed now because nobody contributes to the Church or wants to become a nun or priest. Why not? The world would be a lot better place if millions more people took a vow of celibacy and dedicated their lives to the common good. Every religion has tried to help people to get out of poverty by having smaller families; nobody listened, so now it must be done by the force of law.
In the United States, the white population has declined by a net 6%. The liberal media say, “The nation is diversifying faster than expected.” Minority populations are exploding: the Asian population has increased by 30%, the Hispanic by 20%, and the Black population by almost 10%. Ideally, all populations would remain stable or decline at a modest rate, as has the white population. That would be the most effective way to diminish climate change. As such, the Green New Deal, as the single greatest increase in social welfare since FDR, is doing the exact opposite of fighting climate change: It’s giving families more and more money to raise their children. What the Green New Deal should do, to be true to its purpose, is to limit population growth by educating couples not to have children until and unless they can provide for all the child’s needs, without government assistance. All their energy should be dedicated to a single child, his/her education, all the way through college or vocational school.
The reality of the marketplace is driving this change: low-skill, low-wage jobs are rapidly being taken over by robots and artificial intelligence. The competition for these entry-level jobs is intense because there’s an increasing number of uneducated, unskilled individuals in the applicant pool. The Green New Deal’s solution is to double the minimum wage to $15/hour. That will only escalate the competition and discourage people from learning the skills to higher-level employment. The Green New Deal, instead, should promote a one-child-per-family policy, encourage families to raise their children without any government assistance, and – if anything – spend that “social welfare” money on higher education or vocational training. The goal should be to eliminate welfare, not to greatly augment it. We need to pay down the national debt, not quadruple it as we have in the last decade.