The New Paradigm

I mentioned, last week, that I didn't care for people. Nothing new. I've said it before. There are just too many of them. At the moment there are about 7.175 billion. That's too many.ⁱ

The Chinese noticed that also. They decided to limit births – to make it a crime to have more than one child. While the penalty is primarily a fine, the Chinese people have accepted the philosophy, with relatively few opting to have additional children even though the rules have been relaxed and a second child is permitted to many of them.

It's a good start – the limitation, that isⁱⁱ – but I suspect that that method probably wouldn't work here. Our culture and political parties would make its implementation impossible. But we recognize the problem. So we toyed with the idea of zero population growth (ZPG) for a while and, to a degree, still favor methods that would limit births.ⁱⁱⁱ We are the world's third most populous society^iv and have a responsibility to lead the way.^v

One of our responses to the problem has been to encourage the increased production of food. “The Green Revolution,” which earned Norman Borlaug a Nobel Peace Prize, has been supported in large part by American expertise and technology. By the use of hybrid^vi grains and modern techniques and equipment, a marked increase in farm production was achieved and it is estimated that over a billion lives were saved.

The problem with which Borlaug was dealing was clear: too many people and not enough food. From his perspective the solution was self-evident – increase the food supply. And it worked. But it can only succeed for so long. Sooner or later we won't be able to keep up. Sooner or later we'll run out of space and other resources for all the world's people. So we have to think about the other side of the equation – those people. Forget the food. How can we stop population growth? Better still, how can we reduce the world's population?

Working within the limits of American society,^vii the answer seems obvious. Besides the emphasis on sex, a main preoccupation of our society is the LGBTQ movement. More and more members of these groups are appearing out of the woodwork and coming out of the closet, and they're becoming mainstream features of our lives and our culture. Unfortunately we're expending all our efforts in a fight over whether they should exist. Rather than encouraging their participation in American life, we're stifling their development – an act which is not only harmful to them, but to us. They can help us if we let them. Homosexuality should be encouraged.^viii It should become the norm.

How is this possible? Instead of forcing them to stay hidden and to wed members of the opposite sex, we'd be better off with more homosexual unions.^ix The more sterile family units the better, and two homosexuals, whatever the label of their bond, are certain to contribute to that goal. An even surer guarantee of childlessness would be surgery^x that eliminates the possibility of begetting, or bearing a new life. No room for slip-ups, even if one of the participants^xi strays.^xii

That's not to say that they can't rear children. I'm not sure it's such a good idea, but I leave that judgment to the psychologists. There are plenty of children available for adoption (preferably American children – we should solve our own problems before everyone else's) resulting from rapes^xiii and other unplanned (by the mother) events.

We can't ignore the rest of the world entirely, however. Many countries have begun recognizing homosexuality and according increased honor, rights and privileges to its adherents. What the world needs is more homosexuality^xiv in order to lower birth rates in those countries.

As for those lands that continue, in their ignorance, to forbid such practices, we should encourage war and honor killings. And because education appears to be associated with a decreased birth rate, learning programs should be beamed to the recalcitrant nations by both the internet and radio. While it is likely that this will lead to the killings of some of the women who seek education, that will, itself, contribute to the cause. They will be martyrs.

But, as I mentioned earlier, although it is our obligation to lead, we have to start at home. We must keep up with the times and promote forward-thinking programs and movements.^xv Most of our citizens have already accepted the idea that, contrary both to Creationism and Darwinism,^xvi homosexuality is the wave of the future.^xvii It's chic, and we're all sophisticated and sensitive. But more important, the LGBTQ movement is our greatest hope for a nation with a smaller, and more caring society; a country of brotherly – and sisterly – love. But no incest. At least, no heterosexual incest.

Next episode: “I Was Wrong” – Who woulda believed it?

I        Those who see additional children as workers on the farm or elsewhere, and those who desire children to help make up for lives lost during the Holocaust, are doing our species a disservice.

ii       The more recent changes which allow additional children are a mistake.

iii     Our culture also glorifies sex in our movies, television shows, games, and stories. Everything we do – as opposed to what we say – promotes procreation, while we ring our hands over the problems it has caused. But we are “concerned” society, not necessarily a logical or consistent one.

iv       India and China are way ahead of us, but they're not as advanced as we are, and we can only lead them to wisdom. We can't force them to see the light.

v       To reducing the population, not to being the most populous. So here's one approach. Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” and one of the gurus of ZPG, said “The mother of the year should be a sterilized woman with two adopted children.” That was his view of women. I don't know what he said about men.

vi       That sounds suspiciously like genetic engineering which we all know is “wrong.” Whether it works or not, and whether it's dangerous or not, it's immoral and not worth the risks.

vii      Eating children, Jonathan Swift notwithstanding, is unlikely to be accepted as a solution.

viii     We should consider providing free or reduced-price weddings and receptions in these cases.

ix       I prefer something other than “marriage” even though that's the term being bandied around right now. That word has centuries of use with the connotation of the union of members of opposite sexes. A new designation would seem to be preferable to muddying the meaning of the old – perhaps a univalent bond.

x        Christine Jorgensen and Lorena Bobbitt were pioneers in this field.

xi      I hesitate to say “partners.” A few days ago I heard, on the radio, that the “partner” of a murder victim had testified against the individual accused of the killing. The victim was a policeman and I was uncertain whether the witness shared a patrol car or a bed with him. Or maybe they played bridge together. It's another example of the danger to the language of adapting old terms to new situations.

xii      Consideration should be given to tax exemptions for childlessness, rather than for children. Expenses for child-rearing should never be deductible. Indeed, the government should assess a tax on college education so as to make it more expensive to have children. (Sex education should be given at a much earlier age.)

xiii     Interestingly, there are more than twice as many rapes of men as of women according to the Justice Department. According to the Daily Mail, a British publication, “More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons. In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 [male] inmates were assaulted while serving time, according to the [American] Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison [a little more than 90% of whom are women].” Presumably the numbers are much closer since many (most?) rapes are not reported. The figures, however, suggest that we should consider an increase in incarceration to inure inmates to homosexuality and, perhaps, cure some of them of their heterosexual tendencies.

xiv      And bestiality as well. Satyrs, mermaids, and centaurs don't reproduce all that well. The status of sirens and harpies is a matter of opinion.

xv        We should provide birth-control clinics at home and around the world. And we should emphasize the value of hysterectomy and vasectomy which we might promote as procedures which would allow sex at all times without concern about pregnancy which will require abortion or child support. Good for the participant and good for society.

xvi      Whatever the origin of our species, we're increasing like rabbits. “Survival of the fittest” is a poor paradigm for a slimmed-down and efficient future. Childless unions should be the goal.

xvii     Actually it's the wave of the present – a fact easily discernible by watching TV or going to the movies or a play. If you're not queer, you're strange, and divorced from the new American ethos.