LETTERS: CONTROLLING POPULATION

To the editor:

A very basic reality is that each of us has an impact on the environment in which we live and, as a result of the things we do, the resources we consume and the waste/pollution we produce. The impact of any nation on the global environment is a function of population size and the activities of each member of the population. The population of any species is ultimately regulated by the ability of its habitat to provide the resources it needs and manage the waste it produces.

In assessing the extent to which any nation's population can be supported, we must account for consumption and pollution patterns. Long-term survival and quality of life are dependent on our keeping resource consumption below the rate of resource renewal and pollution below the rate at which we poison ourselves and our environment can cleanse itself.

If you don't think global population stabilization is a U.S. security matter, ponder this: If just the current world population were to achieve the ecological impact of Canadians (approximately 10 acres per person), it would take 50 billion acres of productive land to maintain it. But this planet only has some 30 billion acres, of which fewer than 20 billion are actually usable as crop or forest land, so we would need to find additional planets in order to bring the undeveloped world to equal Canada's lifestyle.

It is depressing, therefore, to see this Congress promoting larger families with a tax credit to those producing more babies. It is also distressing to see the same Congress trying to reduce foreign aid that helps promote family planing around the world. These are head-in-the-sand positions. Those who argue, whether for political or religious reasons, against global population stabilization are arguing for an ultimate human disaster with a catastrophic population crash accompanied by a severe reduction in the quality of life for those remaining.

SCOTT A. CHILCUTT

Cape Girardeau