The following essay, completed in 10-2003, clarifies my staunch opinion that in the biggest picture, overpopulation is the single most potent issue facing our species.

Overpopulation Bad "Population growth is the primary cause of environmental damage." Jacques Cousteu Yes, it's a ridiculously simple title to an essay whose core concepts have riddled incisive publication for years. But since so many horny boneheads keep breeding wantonly, it's evident more, stronger messaging must continue to permeate mediaspace. The environmentalists, while benign cousins of folks like myself, have it all wrong. In their good-natured effort to improve the environment, they are going at the whole process backwards. They attempt to affect change what results from overpopulation, rather than overpopulation itself. For example, I stand on the side and watch as, one by one, innocents are brought before a person with a gun and are shot dead. There is an infinite line of these sheep, and an infinite number of bullets in the assassin's weapon. An environmentalist weeps and cries and tries desperately to save each shot person. They apply CPR, mouth-to-mouth and bandage the wounds. But no matter how many techniques you use, a person who dies from a gunshot is rarely, if ever, revived from any techniques currently known. Active members of movements like NPG (Negative Population Growth) walk over to the assassin and try their darndest to stop the killing at the source. They cajole the assassin. They might try to take the gun away from the killer. Or offer a fistful of money to make the death stop. At the end of the day the environmentalists, crying, weeping, pulling their hair out and making a tremendous ruckus do nothing but to stir up mute, inert concern: the killing continues, barely slowed at best. Those who favor curbing population growth and, ideally, reducing the total worldwide population over time, rarely make a dent in the killing, but theirs is the only practical way true, lasting, deep change can be affected.  Environmentalists God(s) love them. They do their best. Whilst slightly shallow and illogical in their analysis of current conditions, they do try very, very hard. And they're quite an energetic bunch. Plus their cause is rife with good, compelling imagery that can be bent to their needs brilliantly. Innocent ducks covered in crude oil. Piles of oft-debated statistics and fancy graphs illustrating the damage caused by global warming. They're useful and are to be somewhat praised because while they fail utterly to attack the true root of the problem, they do enthusiastically condemn the outcome of the problem. So they are our allies. They help illustrate the indirect results of too many breeding people. They also distract us from the root problem and probably pull various financial and human resources from the root problem, but still, they can only be moderately praised.  NPG'ers Haven't found a good *noun* for citizens who agree with this essay, so we'll just have to settle for that one.  Unfortunately the imagery, and we are after all an image intense society almost requiring pretty pictures and graphs before we actually understand and believe something in the aggregate, associated with this concept is nowhere near as compelling as those of our environmentalist cousins. Abstinence, assisted suicide, birth control, being not-nice to big, healthy families: none of these are particularly positive images. Yes, many of us agree that at least some of those phenomenon are necessary, even good. Condoms to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies are accepted by most sane factions of the world as a good thing. Many elevated cultures also grant their citizens the right to terminate their lives when they choose. And some countries, most notably China, leverage taxation and other political means to diminish average family sizes. But nobody could ever be dim-witted enough to suggest that the imagery from those ways to deal with overpopulation and the attendant destruction of the environment are anywhere near as sexy and compelling as the picture of a dolphin strangled and dead in a tuna net.  The Church Like corporations organized religion desires to grow the number of its members. They can recruit from competing religions, they can try converting those few scattered atheists wandering around, but their tried and true means by which they maintain or even grow their ranks is through reproduction. After all, if you were indoctrinated to a given religion as an impressionable child, then you're much more apt to stay in the fold as an adult. And unlike corporations, most religions possess a divine mandate to save souls by converting as many non-believers- heathens- to their sect. I can't blame them. If I believed that without following the specific tenants of my specific cult humans would be punished in the afterlife, then I would also seek to swell my church's ranks in an altruistic effort to save as many souls as possible.  But here is where the comparison between corporations and churches really breaks down.  Corporations have a responsibility to sell as much of their product as possible. They have a responsibility, to a large extent, to their employees, their shareholders, and their nation. More product moved is good. So more potential customers, presumably creating more consuming customers, is good.  Organized religion, on the other hand, is ostensibly only responsible for saving the souls of currently existing humans, generally speaking. Yes, simple Christian minds trapped by dogma can point to the "Be fruitful and multiply" cliché from the Bible, but just as certain aspects of the Bible have been put aside by the majority of the world's population, so too can this adage be set aside without losing the core beliefs and positive attributes of this prevalent religion.  So, organized religions of the world- especially Catholicism (though I shan't pick on you overly much here, you're too easy a target these days)- please preach moderation to your flocks. It is good for the world, for our environment, and for the very flock you serve.  Excessive Reproduction Is Selfish It's lamentably true.  Why do people reproduce in the first place? Certainly not to make more money- while some may whine about the welfare mothers, even they exist in meaningful number, which I doubt, they certainly aren't getting rich of their purported scheme. Anymore, as proven above, it is not to add more hands to keep the farm humming. People reproduce for six primary reasons, and oftentimes a combination of these reasons: 1- They succumb to a deep rooted compulsion to do so. The kind of almost genetic compulsions like slaying their enemies, eating meat, and dozens of others that many successfully resist every day. There is a genetic imperative to reproduce constantly- why do you think sex feels so darn good- that is antiquated. Just because a salesman at a competing company sells more product than me doesn't mean I am going to act on the barbarian cravings buried deep down in my heart and slay him.  2- Whoops! Fully *x*% of all births in the US can be attributed to the whoops factor. The condom broke or the pill wasn't taken with sufficient regularity, or whatever.  3- To carry on their name. Yes, quaint as this may sound to some readers, many of your fellow citizens are compelled to carry on their name in their progeny. This reason is closely tied, and sometimes redundant with the first reason. 4- Their parents require it. They feel an inalienable right to be grandparents since they suffered through being parents. Well, I'm here to tell all you wanna-be grandparents that you need to get over yourself. Stop meddling in your children's affairs. If you get to be a grandparent, then you're lucky. If not, then drive on and stop whining. You should stop whining about not winning at bingo and not having grandchildren. Hopefully you were a good parent and so aren't consumed by the selfish compulsion to be a grandparent so you "do it right this time"… There is no second try here. You either were a good, loving parent or you weren't. And no amount of grandchildren will change that. 5- You want somebody there to take care of you in your dotage. Sorry, our planet can't afford you that luxury. Believe me, if you opt to not reproduce, and instead saved and invested all the monies you would have been spending on raising the child, when it comes time to retire you will plenty of people that love you and will want to take care of you. Because you will be rich. And rich people are rarely left on the streets to rot away in misery. And besides which, what happens if your child(ren) die before you? You're hosed. So this reason is invalidated. 6- The overwhelming compulsion to create. This is, in some senses, the most respectable of reasons to procreate. Like any artist you believe yourself capable of creating and forming a human being, the act of which will be supremely satisfying to you, and quite probably will positively benefit the world in a deeply meaningful manner. You could sire and raise the next Ghandi. You could. And, you might not. If you're considering having kid(s) and you see this as the main reason- deep in your heart of hearts- to procreate then please, do us all a favor and go take an art class at your local community college. Sit down in front of your computer and write the next great American novel. Human beings are not a sculpture. And you're selfish and shallow to think so.  Quality Vs. Quantity Alright, so you want to reproduce for one or more of the reasons listed above.  I understand. Heck, I have a wonderful, beautiful child whose existence is owed to at least a couple of the reasons I've listed. And I'm no hypocrite.  Why have I not sired more children? I'll review the reasons, item by item, paralleling the list above. 1- Been there, done that. I've no excuse for doing so again. 2- Ditto 3- Ditto 4- Hey, mom and dad, I've given you a grandchild. Now get off my back. Go pester my siblings if you must. 5- Got it covered. I'm confident that my boy will care for me. And regardless, I'm saving the cash so he won't feel burdened by me. I'll be covered regardless.  6- Yes, I am in the process of helping to create the best, happiest, most fulfilled, brilliant, wonderful human being I can. He's not a trial run. He's the One Child for me. This makes me consider my actions very carefully. If I err with my own and only boy, then I've failed to be a Good Parent. I've not given myself the luxury of kicking out two or more children and using the first few as trial runs. I must work very hard to make sure I do the best job I can in raising the one wonderful child I've been blessed with. For whatever creative urges overwhelm me, I'll write diatribes like this one, produce rock n' roll albums, or something else. After all, the world could always benefit from another artistically driven madman. Sex Sex is truly awesome. Not merely awesome in the way surfers might casually describe a tasty wave, but awesome in the soul-shaking sense. At least good sex is. Disengage sex from procreation. They are two separate actions. Like the separation between cars and mortal accidents. Yes, driving cars sometimes yields a mortal accident, but only rarely- especially if the driver is alert and not unlucky. Deer All but the most militant of animal rights activists confess that deer populations can become dangerously excessive. They admit that with too many deer, resources are stressed and these innocent animals suffer as a result. Humans are animals. Humans are intelligent and devious and horny, but animals nonetheless.  So, what happens when the population of deer in a given region becomes too dense?  Do we opt to put out corn for them to eat in the winter? Comparable to providing their parallel humans with tax deeper tax cuts for each child sired.  Do we invest in technology to stop them from jumping in front of cars on roads cutting through their decalred territory?  No, we don't do any of things. Consistently we as a culture do one thing. We ratchet up the number of deer that can be slain in a given season.  Obviously I'm not suggesting some barbaric process as humorously outlined in the classic film *site movie name where population is controlled through death*. But for all of you who hunt, for all of you who have ever used the "… but we're just culling the heard. If we don't put 'em down, then they'll starve" excuse for hunting, you best climb on board with this essay. I anticipate you don't want to be hypocritical and, after all, are we all that different from our fellow animals? Get Over It Guys Just because you're shooting blanks doesn't mean you're less of a man.  And for those of you that have sufficiently meaningless lives to be concerned about whether the quantity of liquid you produce at orgasm will be reduced or even eliminated, don't worry about it: that doesn't happen. Your partner can't tell the difference. Trust me.  We're not talking about castrating you here.  We're merely talking about defusing your twin grenades.  And let me assure you, if you know in your heart of hearts that you no longer wish to sire more children, it is one of the most empowering feelings you can imagine. Granted there are some neanderthals that don't even consider the consequences of their actions. Most forms of birth control hit 99% efficacy at best. So, if you have sex 100 times, there is suddenly a reasonable probability you will impregnate the woman. Think about that. Condoms are great for diminishing the exchange of disease, and certainly they help diminish the likelihood of getting a woman pregnant, but unfortunately, if she becomes pregnant you can be left in a painfully awkward position with very few options left to you. If you're shooting blanks, then you can hump and hump and hump and never have to even think twice about potentially getting a woman pregnant. It's a beautiful thing. Very empowering. Granted, it's still adviseable to use a condom to reduce the odds of disease transmission but, particularly if you and your woman are monogamous, you can toss those cloying, unsexy (sorry Planned Parenthood, condoms are not sexy- it's a fact) condoms in the drawer and hump yourself silly!  "But," you may whine "I'll feel like less of a man. Why not have her undergo surgery so we don't have to worry about unwanted pregnancy?" To sissies like you I say Grow Up. Women must undergo much more invasive, costly, dangerous surgery than you. For you it's a 10 minute office visit. Snip, snip and you're outta there. For her its much more invasive.  Abortion Abortion is sub-optimal.  Permitting the government to seize control of a woman's body is bad.  There is no good answer to this issue.  No woman comes out of an abortion saying "Wow, I feel great! That was fun!"  And I refuse to distract readers from the core issue being addressed in this essay by even trying to delve into this painfully complex issue.  Suffice it to say, human population levels cannot be healthily managed using abortion. Period. It is a non-issue in this essay.  Immigration Many groups that do a fine job of trying to heighten awareness of the growing plague of humanity choking our planet, have in fact done more than I personally will probably ever be capable of doing, drop the ball on this matter. They oftentimes approach this issue from a myopic, domestic perspective. They see diminished levels of legal and illegal immigration as one of several approaches to collectively help curb excessive populations here in the USA. This enables them to focus their message and their energy on just the USA. And, if the USA was the only country where rampant population growth was an issue, then that attitude would be practical. Unfortunately will very few exceptions, all countries are suffering to varying degrees with this problem. By clamping down on, say, illegal immigration in the USA, focusing naturally on Mexico, we might curb the increase in the population of the USA, in particular states like California and Texas, but that doesn't impact in any meaningful way the increasing number of consuming humans- it just diminishes their capacity to move around.  The problem of overpopulation is a world problem. It is the classic world problem. Too many Americans eating *use actual figures here* bazillions of Happy Meals result in more Brazilian rain forests in being permanently decimated, and toxins spilling into the foodchain in China where the little plastic toys are manufactured. Canada suffers whenever a new coal factory is built in New York State, as the ash and toxins that inevitably pour up into the oxygen land on their pristine land.  Corporations and Stock Owners Support Population Growth Every year Coca Cola sells more and more of their beverage. Is it because it is better than Pepsi? Because they're making huge inroads into previously untapped markets like Libya? Definitely not. These activities, those highlighted in their various stockholder reports, do contribute to the bottom line. But what really, truly helps drive their steady increase in sales, year after year, is that there are more people stumbling around the planet buying their products. I submit that responsible corporations the world over should begin adding a new line to their various reports, backing out the sales gains derived unarguably from the birth of new consumers. So, in Switzerland that number would be smaller than in, say India. Grabbing 7% more market share in Switzerland is a much more meaningful victory than grabbing the same percentage in India. Granted, they would be netting more profit in India since that 7% increase would represent a massively larger number of units sold than the the same 7% in tiny Switzerland, but still, that kind of percent increase in most European nations would reflect a better victory from a marketing perspective.  Corporations love the fact that we keep breeding wantonly. Every new human is a potential customer. If there are fewer new humans, there are fewer new customers. Seems simple, I'm sure, but it's a powerful facet of this entire issue that evades most. By leveling the playing field for all corporations worldwide- backing out sales increases on a country-by-country basis driven by population increases- the issue of needing to report the increase in sales they felt merely from more bodies buying product dissipates. If Pepsi and Coke both backed, for example, 4% of their gross profits in India where, hypothetically speaking, the population had increased by 4%, we would still have a consistent benchmark to compare so I know which stocks to buy.  War Yes, there are still wars: sort of. It's hard to call today's wars at best more than police actions, or at worst corporate actions leveraged through a government. But long gone are the days when a long, wretched event like the US Civil War manages to decimate a substantial proportion of the breeding male population of a given nation. Or where entire cities were utterly exterminated as occurred throughout WWII. War unarguably helped curb populations. And it still helps today. As witnessed in the humbling of Iraq referred to as Desert Storm II, the USA lost more troops to accidents caused by the weather and our own troops than we did to the enemy. If we were to measure the percentage of 18-35 year old males killed in DSII versus all 18-35 year old males in the USA, it would be a minute fraction compared to even wars like Vietnam. During Vietnam there were fewer males overall, and many more killed.  It is of course a good thing that war has, at least for now, ceased to be a relevant factor- on a global population scale. I am not so stupid or absurd to suggest we commit WWIII merely for the sake of culling the breed. Weapons of Mass Destruction- those things Iraq still evidently possess, that we the USA have in ridiculous abundance- are such that mega-wars are no longer feasible. Mutual Assured Destruction prevents us from really digging into a good, population-culling war in the truly lusty, horrific sense of the word.  The Good Old Days Just a few generations ago- before widespread availability and encouragement to use birth control- the average family size was massive, by today's standards. Conventional wisdom assures us this was for two main reasons: 1- Children are free labor. Life was tough and every head added to the family could presumably, throughout their childhood, contribute positively to the overall net energy needed to keep the family chugging and 2- Sex is fun. It feels good and it's free. After a hard day on the farm, or in the kitchen, or whatever, a nice roll in the hay was a terrific way to end the day. And since contraceptives either didn't exist, weren't readily available, diminished the pleasure, or were declared verboten by many sociacultural organizations, breeding was truly rampant.  In many countries both reasons still exist to varying extents. But in many more countries, like ours, they have ceased to be valid. Condoms are handed out for free in many places, many insurance programs will pay for *snipping a man*, and kids are rarely forced to do even a tenth of the chores their forebears were required to do.  Furthermore, disease prevention and control and medical facilities were nowhere near as advanced as they are today. More children died in childbirth, died during childhood, and died younger as adults. Today the mortality rate for humans, and especially children, has dropped dramatically. That is, in and of itself, a good thing. Though the effect that has had on overpopulation cannot be stressed enough. Siring several children isn't just bizarre in the USA anymore, its downright immoral. I know, my editor thinks I'm being fascist and overly judgmental, but he's wrong.  Mother Nature Many of my peers in this cause might opt to cite the overwhelming, unstoppable power of Mother Nature, Gaia, whatever you want to call it, to retain homeostasis on our fragile planet.  Granted, biological forces will tend to keep any species in check. If kudzu takes over the Southeastern United States, then presumably, at some point, something will learn how to consume kudzu and sup upon the feast of defenseless, plentiful weed. Basic tenants of biological reality tend to keep non-sentient species, over the long term, from taking over the world.  This is a powerful force, as has been demonstrated time and time again. The Big Question is whether we as sentient, thinking, engineering, medically advanced humans can outstrip Nature's tendency to keep things in check. If Nature is sufficiently potent, and we are in fact a rampantly reproducing species on the planet, then soon we'll suffer an apocryphal biological disaster. Something like the Black Plague, which decimated the populations it assaulted- but on a global scale. You may choose to believe that good ole' Nature will keep things in check and that until that kind of apocalypse strikes, than we must be a-ok. I think: 1- That kind of apocalypse sucks and is to be avoided at almost any cost. Why have millions of sentient humans die when perhaps the calamity could have been avoided by diminishing rampant breeding. 2- That kind of apocalypse will never happen. We've won. Our brains and, more importantly, our knowledge has increased to the point that Nature can't cull us it might prefer. AIDS strikes, we immediately identify ways to diminish its spread and impact on infected persons, and will quite probably someday find a bona fide cure. Same with cancer. Smallpox, *cite several diseases wiped out in north America* have all been virtually eliminated from at least North America and much of the world.  Mother Nature has been reduced to the roll of sidekick. Like Robin to our Batman. We count on Robin alone to foil the Riddler of recklessness. We cannot do that any longer. We must assume responsibility for our own rampant reproductive folly. Wanton Reproduction is Immoral That is the message that must be burned, beaten into, and blasted past all media, governments, corporations, religions and citizens. Every time I sire a child I am doing three things: 1- Created a new beautiful life that could win a Nobel prize or write an inspiring symphony and 2- Created another consumer of energy and goods and creator of pollution and planetary destruction and 3- Created another probable breeder that, in exponential fashion is totally capable of contributing mightily to the already dangerously large population down through the generations forever.  Tough to see it this way, isn't it. Many people can't quite get their brain wrapped around such a concept. It's difficult to do. And it even hurts. But it's a fact. Just as 150 years ago in Greensboro, NC it was tough for the majority of the population to understand the fact that "All men are created equal." was true irrespective of skin color. So rampant, selfish reproduction is immoral and one day the majority of our population will agree. The only real question is how radically we'll deteriorate our quality of life, how monstrously we'll destroy the environment- perhaps irrevocably- before most of us finally figure this simple fact out. The Answer The final answer(s) is/are still forthcoming. The following represent a few potential suggestions. Alpha Wave: " Repeal the outdated taxation policies that reward aggressive breeders and punish those that breed minimally or refrain totally from breeding. This is the simplest answer, yet in many ways the most complex because it refutes some of the most basic, unspoken tenants upon which our social fabric is woven. " Enable federal and state tax monies to make hysterectomies free.  These unto themselves will, over time, contribute greatly to the lessening of toxic, rampant human reproduction and afford us all a superior lifestyle without any needless, immoral death to accomplish it. Beta Wave: Sit down. Brace yourself. These are probably a little radical for you. Though they're eminently practical and, in many cases utilized in other countries as we speak, they're apt to rock your mind.  " Pay men to undergo hysterectomies. I know, it probably sounds radical to you. Indonesia, among other nations, have done it and it worked great. Think about all the men that have reproduced wantonly and how they and, more importantly, their children, could have been saved a lifetime of pain and frustration. The ROI on this particular solution is unarguable. The savings, psychic, financial, social and in other ways, profound.  " Promote the joys of sterility. As described above, there is a certain thrill from knowing that no matter how many times you orgasm, you're not going to inadvertently impregnate your partner. And, furthermore, women that aren't keen on reproducing with you, but definitely want to enjoy carnality with you, will be much wilder than you might have ever thought. Being sterile changes everything. It removes one MAJOR stressor from the equation for both you and your partner and everybody benefits. With compelling advertising, akin to the prevalent anti-smoking ads clotting media, popular opinion regarding such a benign surgery will evolve. " Overturn traditional wisdom concerning taxation as it pertains to reproduction. In the past American society has opted to create tax breaks that favor large families. This was realistic and practical for many of the reasons cited above. That was then, this is now. Large families kill our world. Taxation must reflect this new reality. China knows it. We, in our heart of hearts, know it. Create a code that rewards those that don't procreate and, as appropriate, ratchets up the taxes charged to those who bring more humans into the world. After all, more humans equal more stress placed on our society. Each human uses the roads more often, drinks more water, drains waste into septic systems more often, turns more gasoline into noxious vapors, etc. Just as tolls are charged on certain roadways- so only the users of those roads pay for the construction and subsequent maintenance of those roads- so too should parents bear responsibility for the added wear and tear on public systems stressed by an abundance of humanity. There are many, many more items that could be added to this list. They are reserved for a future column. For now, these are sufficiently challenging. Enacting one of them, in one isolated state would be a major coup. Enforcing all of them in all 50 states within my lifetime would be a miracle worth pursuing. Facism My ex-wife inevitably accused me of fascism whenever we heartily debated this topic. She claimed that by in any way financially encouraging men to undergo hysterectomies, it was tantamount to racism and mere centimeters from fascism.  She was, of course, wrong. Or rather, this method to achieve social evolution is no more fascist than any other government program that seeks to promote change through fiscal means. Whether awarding colleges for maintaining certain levels of diversity, or corporations for encouraging diversity. It's all different manifestations of the same premise. Leveraging governmental power and fiscal muscle to affect change that intellectually is mandated. Do you think, for a moment, that without this kind of exercise Rosa Parks could ride anywhere she wants on the bus?  There are times when our elected federal government must issue and enforce certain laws for the overall betterment of the society that elected them to power.  Thank god(s) that this is the case. Otherwise evils like racism would still be even more thoroughly riddled throughout our fairly enlightened culture.  The supposition and solutions described throughout this essay are not fascist. Any more than the liberation of non-white citizens of this proud country has been fascist. They are practical, and necessary, and right. Now.  Conclusion I hope that by reading through this dull little rant your eyes will be forced open, at least a few millimeters. That you will drop this publication at your side and consider what you've read, knowing that it is in your hands to help change the world. It is in all our hands. Nobody else's.

No, I am not the famed film director. Though aspiring actresses are welcome to contact me.