Resource allocation

Yesterday I was reading the National Geographic April 2010 edition, a special edition entitled "Water, our thirsty world".

Most of you probably think that I couldn't give a toss about the environment. Yep, I like fast cars, nice toys and try to enjoy some of the money I earn by seeing the world. You probably don't know that we try to grow our own veges, recycle as much as possible, only use energy saver light bulbs, try to limit the numbers of trips into town (well, petrol is pricey!), turn off electrical devices, only heat key areas in winter and try not to waste water. So there.

The NG issue focused on the global availability of water and how water is currently managed. The more I read, the more it seemed to be missing the key issue. Surely the reason we have these shortages and changes is due to humans - the impact of human expansion, growth, development and modern medicine keeping everyone alive. So if we're happy to ration all other resources - water, food, fuel - why is it so terrible to discuss rationing of humans?

Before all the mummsies and daddsies reach for the phone and call the police, I'm not talking eugenics. I'm talking practicality. The world's population currently sits at around 6,817,100,000. China and India both have well over 1 billion people each. At current birth/death rates, the world population is expected to reach about 9 billion between 2040 and 2050. That's a lot of people. If birth rates don't change and if resources continue to decline, how (on Earth) can this population be supported?

Politicians and the general public talk so blithely about global warming and climate change yet do not appear to have the capacity to consider ways apart from "protocols" or "taxes" as methods of change. Why not look at addressing the core issue? Why not discuss limits such as every person can only have 1 child each? That means two people together could have two children. Let those who choose not to have children be rewarded by being able to "sell" their allocation. Manage population growth! I don't care who breeds with whom, just how many they have.

Wait, I can hear the arguments already. Compulsory sterilisation - gasp! Only after you've had (or traded) your allocation. Maybe it would help people to use contraception - if you use your allocation up at age 16, maybe you'll regret it at 26. Surely it's an environmental argument that's worth having.

My sister-in-law made a "humourous" post on Facebook today over an "article" (no doubt sponsored by Nappy Brain United) allegedly recommending that people without children shouldn't receive a pension. Maybe the nappy brains out there should think about the population and the damage they are doing to the world before they make comments about those who choose not to have children.

The Rose