Saturday, April 19, 2008

Practicing Math Skills. (Sort Of)

Occasionally I poke around at other blogs, especially those of folks who’ve happened upon here.  It’s a good chance to find new reads.  Sadly, I rarely make time to read blogs anymore, so I don’t often squeeze in new blogs since I don’t have time to read the old ones, even.  After two cans of Dr. Pepper, though, (some of you may know I have, for the most part, given up caffeine, so this is especially hard hitting) I can’t sleep for anything, so here I am at 3:30am surfing new blogs, and I happen upon this article which strikes a lot of deep feelings ranging from terror to guilt to an optimistic “I wonder which family I should wipe out to help alleviate the problem?”

Just kidding on that last one.

Mostly.

Many years ago, I was befriended by a woman who had aspirations to have ten kids.  We vehemently disagreed on whether or not it was “right” to do so and she’d throw back in my face, “You have three, what’s the difference between three and ten?”

Seven.  Duh. 

It was about that point that I put my “Don’t Breed More Than You Can Feed” logo on my links page as a dig, because not only was this woman’s family being almost entirely supported by various social services, she was one of those women who had “high risk” pregnancies (paid for by state funding) and also ended up having (multiple) children who had special needs (their needs also provided for through other means other than her or her husband’s hard work.)

Needless to say, the friendship didn’t last long.

Some accused me of snobbery, of which I was fully guilty.  However, there is some basis for my angst over people spawning too many kids.  Sure, there are a lot of folks who choose not to have kids, and a lot of devastated couples who can’t, for whatever reason, have kids, but for every couple with none, there are three families with four or more kids.  Okay.  I made that statistic up, but it sounded cool, didn’t it?  There really is a risk of overpopulation and overtaxing our environment.  Already we complain (even in rural areas where I live) of overpopulation in schools and how there aren’t enough teachers to go around and how the classrooms won’t fit the class sizes and we gripe about sardine communities where everyone is packed right on top of each other.  Farmlands and open plains are quickly being melted down and reformed into suburban bedroom communities and the world is changing - not for the better, in my opinion.

Of course, I have no room to point accusatory fingers at anyone.  I have three children.  They are loved and well cared for and we (their father and I) provide their needs without relying on welfare, food stamps, or other government assistance.  Just because we are providing for our kids doesn’t change the fact that our kids are still using up the world’s resources - no matter who pays for those resources.  D’oh!  We have more than is required to “continue” the human race, so we are as guilty as the woman who aspired to have ten for overpopulating the earth.  It definitely strikes a chord of guilt, but it’s not like we get to “throw one back” because we spawned too many.

Frankly, I blame medical science.  Medicine has come so far.  People talk about how medical science has increased our life spans, and in numbers it has, but not in the way people think.  It’s not that people are living into their 80’s and 90’s today and they never ever did before, though it is true that more people are living to riper ages.  What really and truly effects the numbers is the number of infant deaths in the past verses the relatively few in the present.  30 years ago, a baby born three months premature had almost no chance at survival.  Today?  The chances are significantly higher.  When infant mortality is factored in, the fact that medical science is keeping children alive beyond the age of two is probably more important than people living beyond the age of 40.

Don’t believe me?

Let’s look at Los Angeles County in 1920 verses 2003, shall we?

In LA County in 1920 there were 18,009 live births and 1,326 infant deaths.  In 2003 there were 152,192 live births and only 822 infant deaths.  I’m no mathematician, but from my sketchy calculations, that means 7% of the infant population in 1920 never saw adulthood and in 2003 only about half a percent actually died.  More babies were born in 2003, but less died.  Trust me, that’s going to effect the “average lifespan” - and population - pretty deeply.

None of us wants to lose a child, in fact, I can’t think of anything more devastating.  However, infant mortality has always been a way for nature to weed out the weak.  The same could be said of certain diseases, some of which decimated entire populations, but which now medical science can treat or even prevent. 

So what happens when the weak aren’t weeded out? 

Well, let’s just look at Autism statistics, since it’s the “fastest-growing developmental disability” today.  In 2003, it was estimated that in 10 years the estimated cost for Autism would be $200-400 billion annually.  Set aside carbon footprints and the oil crisis and even the rapidly depleting rain forests for a moment and just look closer to home.  Pull out your wallet.  Open it up.  Look inside.  Will that wallet ever see $200 billion?  Mnyeah, no.  In 2003 there were an estimated 217.8 million people age 18 and over in the US alone.  Even if we only keep the estimated population increase of 13% and no higher, that means there will be an estimated 246 million people in 2013 over the age of 18.  246 million people who have to come up with $200 billion (minimally, according to the estimates.) That means annually, each person will be forking out a little over $800 a year for just Autism.  Except, some of those 246 million people will have Autism (or other diseases or disabilities) and not have the means to pay that $800/year.

In fact, in 2003, 38,934,000 people over the age of 5 were considered disabled.  Since debilitating diseases like Autism seem to be on the rise, it seems likely that an even greater percentage of people will be disabled, meaning that $800/year is going to have to be absorbed by those who do have the means to pay.  And that’s just for Autism.  Let me ask you this, then, as you look into your wallet, do you have $100 a month to shell out each month toward the care of someone with Autism?  If so, I suggest donating now so that maybe the damage medical science has done by cutting out the process of weeding out the weak can perhaps be reversed.  Otherwise, start saving your pennies.  You’ll need every last one.

So yeah, overpopulations costs everyone.  If you can’t think “big” in terms of rain forests you’ll never see, endangered animals you can’t even name, or even about the water or food or air that you need on a constant basis, think the American way - with your wallet - and realize that overpopulation is an expense we all pay in ways we don’t even realize.

In Other Years:

I Live at the End of the Rainbow! (2005)

It was pouring rain and the sun was out. …[Read More]

Desperate for Motivation (2004)

There are about a dozen or so projects I’d like to get started and or finished but I have no…[Read More]

Lucky at Neopets (2003)

OH MY GOD!!!  I won!

Woohoo, talk about getting lucky while playing “Neopets”:http://www.neopets.com/ I’m…[Read More]

The Strength of a Pine (2003)

I am the tall pine tree.  I have no wings.  I have no feet on which to run.  In this…[Read More]

Comments

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.