70亿人很多吗? – 7 billion people, is that many? – English

  
1084
Rating this article
Thanks!
An error occurred!
100%
6 paragraph translated (6 in total)
Read or translate in
  

Being born in a large family with many kids, from my earliest years I had the feeling that the one child policy was not a right solution. The more I read and deliberated on this problem, the more I felt the absurdity of birth control, so I became an opponent of this theory .

The experts on birth control policy create pseudoscience. Why? Just take a look at their mathematic models. They claim that the general wealth per capita = unchangeable resources/population. Therefore, the less people, the bigger income per capita. This far too easy equation assumes that the amount of resources is constant, and what is more, it states it is better to reduce the population than to increase the volume of resources so as to raise the general wealth. Resources are mainly produced by people. If not owing to them, how could those means be obtained?

I always repeat: the resources are in fact unlimited. Why? Just because of human nature. The bigger the population, the more resources can be obtained. I remember that during my primary school years, the media kept on claiming that petroleum would be finished in 20 years. Now, as those 20 years have passed, they are still saying we will run out of petrol in the next 30 years. But who knows what the situation will be atthis time? Well, I can now tell everybody that in the next 30 years they will communicate that we will have enough petroleum only for the next 40 years. Why do I think so? The reason lies in the human spirit that moves the universe – the men can not only consume petroleum, but also explore new sources of petroleum. Therefore, along with the development of new technologies, new ways of obtaining petroleum will be discovered. According to the most optimistic forecasts, the Earth is the planet of fuel, so there should be enough for the next 300 years.

However, demographers might still be complaining: ok, but one day it will finish anyway. Is it all right to leave this problem to our offspring ? I can only reply that 400 years ago petroleum was not considered a resource. Since then mankind has made big progress – now we can exploit it as fuel. Still, there are some researches on nuclear power being conducted. If the French experimental reactor turned out to be successful, the sea waters could be the source of energy for the next million years. Also, the positive result of the British and American tests on laser fusion would mean that we can produce enough energy to destroy the universe. Therefore, the problem lies not in the lack of resources; rather in the lack of talented scientists being able to exploit them. But this talent cannot be taken from one or two people; it is proportional to the whole human population.

Still, demographers mention another arising problem: the size of the Earth is limited, what about overpopulation? In fact, this is another absurd problem. We should not be worried about the space to live; after all, we can always migrate to other planets, for example Mars. Just as many years ago people moved from Africa as Eurasia, which seemed to be a better place to live. Afterwards they went across the ocean to explore the lands of South and North America. I strongly believe that our offspring, with the support of technology, might find much better places to live on different planets. Right now, people try to explore Mars. But to achieve this goal, there is huge amount of human resources needed.

In conclusion, the more people, the better. The poverty of a country or family is not caused by the number of children or citizens, but rather by the system governing it. When considering poor and rich countries, first of all we must see if their political system is the same. In general, democracies are wealthier than dictatorships, but in the case of the countries with the same system, the highly populated one will be the richer. Why are the United States wealthier than Great Britain? The population of the United States is 300 million. If it was 60 million, they would be equivalent to the United Kingdom, if 20 million – less than Canada. Large families are the future of the country. Having only one child is a burden for a family. One-child families give no hope and future even for affluent countries. Nowadays, facing the constantly mentioned problem of supporting an aging population, please consider yourself – isn’t raising children your social obligation?

Article Revisions:



Source : My 1510

About julien.leyre

French-Australian writer, educator, sinophile. Any question? Contact julien@marcopoloproject.org