The question is: "Do we want citizens or do we want mere bodies?" It is easy enough to have bodies-three bilions today, five bilions when the young grow to adults, eight bilions in a generation, and so forth. By bodies we mean those human beings whose chances of kalotic existence are so low as to be negligible. If a man feels the word "negligible" is too strong, let him recall how often nowadays he hears these words of hopelessness and disgust: "...it will have to come to a nuclear war, or a giant famine, that's the only way". The rest of the people, whom we call citizens, are those who breathe, eat, wed, learn, and produce in a humane style, who can raise their heads too think, and who can deal equally with other men; of them there are a scarce half a billion today, one in every seven persons.
There is little possibility that these fortunate people would escape the holocaust or famine. Even if no catastrophe were to occur, they will be, as they are already, suffering the pernicious and devouring maladies of world and local crowding, in Paris as in Saigon, in Bali and Des Moines, Iowa.
The statistics have been arrayed in many forms, and are a drug for those who cannot imagine what to do but wish to be busy about the problem of overpopulation. One set of figures suffices for the major point. The world divides into three types of country: crowded but developed lands with low birthrates; spacious developed countries with middle-range birthrates; and crowded or spacious undeveloped countries, all dystrocracies, though some are also taxocracies and stratocracies. The first has half a billion persons, the second another half billion, and the third soon will have two billions. The first two categories are likely to contain three billion people in three generations; the third category of crowded underdeveloped countries will very likely contain sixteen billion persons. At the present rate of growth of the world's population, about 2.5% per annum, the doubling time for the total population is twenty-six years, that is, over eight billions by 1995.
Since the annual rate of growth of the world's economy can barely maintain the same rate of 2.5% per annum, the equivalent of twice as many people as today are miserable will be miserable in the next generation unless the Kalotic Revolution triumphs. But that is not all. A large part of those who are relatively somewhat better off today, who have a chance of being citizens in this world, will have to live in reduced circumstances.
Population is the number of people who are alive. Subsistence is the ratio of number of mouths to number of meals. When the ratio is greater than one, the population is below subsistence. But after subsistence comes the basic kalotic formulas for emos, pneumos, and dikeos. Even when the subsistence ration is highly favourable, the conditions of subsistence (or existence) may be insufferable. So overpopulation is the ratio of number of people to the number of kalotic existences. Revolutionary peopling policy is called for.
There are several kinds of Poverty; not all poverty is crowded poverty, not all crowds are poor. Bodies alone are not the cause of poverty. Poverty is associated with dystrocracy, malorganization for kalotic consensus. The poor crowded lands usually have a caloric intake daily in the ratio of two-thirds of that of the United States. The caloric intake is also deficient in protein.
Some presume that, with the disappearance of crowding, this kind of poverty would diminish. In India and China for the most part, and in some other areas, of which Java is an excellent example, the relation of people to space does seem to be a critical factor. But some of the areas of great poverty are areas of great spaciousness. Venezeula has plenty of land; so has colombia. Unless a decrease in population were accompanied by a new form of social organization, we might expect to find poverty almost as bad in those areas as it is today.
In a certain sense, any group that is poor is crowded; the American Indian was crowded. In fact poor people behave like crowded people in spacious areas such as Central Africa or Central North America, where the means for subsistence are not available; one finds the customs of exposure of infants and the abandonment of the aged when the tribe moves, customs implying that a relationship is sensed between the poverty of a group and the number of people it feeds.
Crowding, apart from the question of diminishing the per capita caloric intake, has other features which are unpleasant and are only regarded as "minor" because we are so much attuned to watching out for the population and the birth rate. Thus, considerable cultural strain arises from crowding. The pleasures that the culture affords are less available and provide less contentment. In Japan it is customary to take walking trips up Mount Fujiyama to admire the view, to look at the sacred mountain, to breathe fresh air. That little trip is becoming a crowded, hectic, noisy path which only the more calloused citizens of Tokyo can undertake.
The jostling of crowdedness is felt without starvation and sometimes even more where people are well fed. The New Yorker bumps his fellow citizens on the Lexing on Avenue subway; his large girth which his heavy caloric intake has given him makes him even more annoyed at the circumstances of his civilization. Even rats that are fed but kept crowded breed less and are more prone to nervous breakdown, homosexuality, and destruction of their young. Human beings differ both culturally and individually in their animosity at the closeness of others, but the more crowding that is forced upon them, the more persons pass over the threshold between tolerating other pressences and reacting aggressively, even violently, against them.2
There is also a destruction of nature, attested to by such devices as the cloverleaf highway junctions that eat up space and beauty in many a part of the American countryside. Time after time, in the urgency of taking care of the advancing crowds, governments and real estate speculators have vied in demoting the human race. "Low-cost housing!". "We must handle traffic congestion." What ominous cries those are!3
Some countries that are the most developed and have the highest caloric intake suffer most from crowding. Portugal today, which physically resembles California before the introduction of the automobile, gives the impression of being a much less crowded country than the United States. The caloric and protein intake of the average Portuguese is somewhat less than that of the United States. This fact does not mean that Portugal must be more crowded; it does mean that in the United States crowding has had its peculiar effects. In the United States people move around much faster, and with rapid mobility comes a sense of crowding. It is crowding that is unrelated logically to the material standard of living. It comes directly from the high mobility that is associated with high living standards. A few people can increasingly provide the means of swiftly fashioning a crowd out of their small number, producing promptly all the disadvantages of crowding. In Mexico, if everyone crowds into a village for a celebration, the country side is deserted. Americans cultivate the art of crowding to the point where on a Sunday they can crowd the country in the morning and then get back so as to crowd the city in the afternoon.
This reduces to a Law of Moving Crowds: Crowding is a function of number of bodies in a social space multiplied by the number of contacts (visual, auditory, motor, imaginary) among the bodies.
But still, no matter how the many parts of the problem of crowding are dissevered, poverty remains as both the major cause and result, and a rising birthrate puts strains upon the distribution of material things and cause not only famine but the other effects of crowding.
The kalotic well-being of the African population, speaking now of Africa south of the Sahara, probably has not changed in recent times. The intervention of the Europeans resulted in societies that were well-organized from the standpoint of providing the Europeans, no matter what their number, with a high standard of living. But the societies were not well-organized to provide the same for the Africans who lived within them. Going beyond the Basal Emotic Standard, which has advanced but slightly, many kinds of psychological and environmental suppression (loss of autonomy, and routinized wagelabor, for example) have affected adversely the general kalotic standard, Prior to the coming of the Europeans, however, there was much local starvation and many below-subsistence economies that resulted, not in birth-control practices in the modern sense, but in population control practices. High morality rates, infant exposure, and the quiet exposure of elders to fatally deficient diets were common events of the pre-modern world.
In the United States about 18% of the households have a money income annually of under three thousand dollars. In India 95% of the population has an annual income of under 3000 rupees. Ten rupees equal one dollar in free international markets, but in the two isolated domestic markets there is an equivalent function performed by a single rupee and a single dollar. Although there are many differences in purchasing behavior between the two nations, it is fairly valid to match three thousand rupees against three thousand dollars.
It is possible in the United States for many people with under three thousand dollars anually to live and sometimes to live decently. If a person is intelligent, frugal, and grows some kind of non-cash crop, or performs services for which he gets goods or other services, he can manage his household for under three thousand dollars just as he can in India with less than three thousand rupees, without falling into the direst poverty. The image of who are the poor of the world is necessarily unclear. The only way to tell whether people are poverty-stricken is to interview them and discover how they maintain themselves. Life-management is more important than cash-income figures or their equivalents, because it contains a wider range of kalotic elements and is therefore a truer assessment of need.
The highest rates of population growth are occurring where the effects of education and wealth cannot presently enter, in Egypt along the Nile, in the Indian villages, in the slums of Jakarta and Caracas. Speaking in harsh money terms, one fifth of the Indian national income is lost owing to the death of children before they reach the age of fifteen. In addition, each birth in the United States ends in an adult who is several times more productive on the average than his Indian counterpart without counting endemic sicknesses, dysentery, and other miseries of life.
To make matters worse, the poor countries have very little to offer the rich countries and will have less and less to offer. Automation, which is progressing rapidly in the rich countries, makes labor even more dispensable, and if it makes the labor of the well-to-do worker less needed, it will certainly do the same to the poor laborer. Also, the invention of substitutes for scarce materials through plastics, compounds, and biological combinations will lessen the contribution that the poor countries can make from their natural resources. The increases in luxuriousness of living will have little to do with the development of the poor countries. The only things that the poor countries might provide, some would say, are slaves and indentured servants. And modern beliefs cannot support such occupations for a human being, nor can modern technology even use them.
Experts on population are therefore almost unanimous in recommending the reduction of population by devices and laws of many kinds, short of depriving poor people of medical, services and food.4 It is proper to ask, however, before prescribing laws and devices, whether they are correct. One way to do so is to take up the argument of the best of the opposing intellectuals.
The physical resources of the world are capable of yielding an immensely increased food supply if we only make the effort to make use of them; the real trouble is that we don't yet really try...The agricultural resources of the world would suffice for three times the present world population, even if they were all consuming food and raw materials at the best European standard - and for far more again, if we were willing to live on a predominantly cereal diet, as the Asians do, which physiologists now assure us can be perfectly satisfactory. Even these figures have not taken any account of further improvements in agricultural and biological techniques, which will almost certainly take place, nor of any food which our descendents may obtain from the sea. And if we really wish to look several centuries ahead and to predict a world population so large that it will outrun even these resources, we can safely say that by that time our descendents will so far surpass us in wealth and in skill that they will be quite capable of building themselves large, artificial satellites, on which they can dwell in the sunny climates of outer space.
So writes Colin Clark.5 what can be said of this argument?
1. The argument is permeated by the premise that "to multiply" bodies is the absolute directive of human kind. We hold that the Kalotic Formula is the moving modern directive of mankind; it creates citizens.
2. The argument purports to have solved the "over-population" problem, but pays no attention to crowding - a destructive force as bad as undernourishment.
3. The very first words are profoundly misleading: "The physical resources of the world are capable..." Physical resources do nothing. Man, organized man, has to develop resources. Here, as in his more detailed writings, Professor Clark takes for granted precisely what is not granted, the organization of man for this solitary task of feeding. As soon as people organize for this task, they adopt a range of tasks and goals, and subordinate this "breed and feed" mania to a wider vision and performance.
4. As everyone can see, mankind is already in the "Asian cereal" phase of life that Professor Clark puts far into the future. If the population of the globe continues to expand, the task of feeding the present population plus the future population will not only make the "Asian cereal" standard necessary but will shortly prescribe a diet of the mosses of the sea and fish powders.
5. To the present excessive constraints of governments and to the strains of developing a generally kalotic society would have to be added the totalitarian restraints implied in the universal changes of culture, diet, work habits, and distribution systems that the "breed and feed" theory demands.
6. To the promise of mosses and powders is added the happy prospect of mass emigration into space centuries hence. Whatever else may be said about such a remote possibility, even Professor Clark must admit that it would be nicer to choose to live on a satellite than to be pushed onto one by the crush of bodies on Earth.
Bungling into eternity with the population brake off is an unimaginably cruel and dangerous way of solving the poverty problem. It is a weird kind of escapism, no better for solving the problem than trusting to the nuclear bomb or to a new epidemic virus, or for that matter to the mass starvation beneath a totalitarian taxocracy which Professor Clark's concept would invariable bring.
It is plain, therefore, why most experts are correct in seeking population controls, even though they may lack a full sense of kalocracy and are only interested as specialists on breeding and feeding.
Now the poor agree with the experts. We have spoken much of political action in this treatise. But the poor are taking their own action. And not only the poor, but the middle classes and rich as well. They are voting against the social order in their own way - illegally, desperately.
Everywhere in the world, most people, when asked, wish for help in controlling births. Everywhere, three children or there abouts are considered an optimal number. Primarily the poor ask that they be able to feed, educate, and employ their children. The rest - many children, all fed, educated, and employed - is impossible at this time in their lives, and they know so.
One third of the world's women therefore attempt or induce abortions once or more in their lifetime, in the United States, Mexico,6 Chile, Peru, or Japan, to cite statistical evidence. Every conceivable method of sexual intercourse that might prevent pregnancy is attempted and every device to avoid or terminate pregnancy is utilized. Almost all of this activity is illegal. A billion women are bleeding and some of them are dying as their vote on peopling policy. As part of their bodily subjection, a billion women everywhere are turned into criminals, are required to risk their lives and health, and to become inadequate wives and mothers. And this is only the sum of direct harm; the full indirect harm has the people of the world on the brink of choosing among mass slaughter, famine, living on ersatz pills, and dumping in outer space, which is the secular maniac's euphemism for heaven.
Still, although the people of the world would cooperate whole heartedly in the restriction of population growth, many are unwilling to do so under present circumstances where their leaders will not let them and misguide them and where they feel reasonably that their sacrifice of the joys of parenthood will not be repaid by a dystrocratic world unorganized for their general welfare. If they surrender what little they might possess, what will the others give up?
Where the laws do not discourage birth control, where the people want to reduce their families, still other problems work against family planning, in all types of regimes. People are not informed. Nor are they disciplined. They are not disciplined for birth control partly because they are disciplined for other things. Part of the process of taking more social responsibilities upon oneself is the growth of discipline and responsibility in a number of other aspects of life until in due course the matter of birth control comes within the scope of such general discipline.
It may be said also that in many cases the poor cannot afford contraception. What may appear to be an absurdly small expenditure by plutocratic standards turns out to be a critical or even impossible expenditure by the standards of the very poor.
And then there may be unconscious processes that are poorly understood. How else can we explain why at certain periods of time countries have had low birth rates, and at other times very high birth rates; sometimes populations grow, whereas at other times they remain stationary? All of this has happened without the benefit of modern contraceptives, but only with the benefit of such contraceptive practices as have always been available to organized societies. Little is known about these unconscious processes. They may have something to do with faith in the future, in both an ethical and personal sense. They have something to do with medical and sanitary practices and customs, but do not vary neatly with changes in such practices. A century ago, new sanitary practices helped balance the fertility differential between rich and poor. Nowadays inventions in sanitation have been "democratized;" they have resulted in more population pressure rather than less. The old Malthusian checks of disease have not been permitted to operate on any social stratum.
The medical workers of the world generally take the position that they are following their calling to save lives and to cure people; they count their successes by the lives they save and the pain they relieve. What to do with the people they cure or save is an affair of somebody else for which they refuse to take responsibility. Nor should they be asked much more than that, since it would be a queer medical profession that took upon itself to refuse to treat disease and illness on the grounds that no precautions had been taken ahead of tome, to take care of the people who were being saved. The important directive for the health professions is to turn more and more resources into assuring kalotic survival. They must, therefore, lead the struggle for limitation of population.
Now the question is why the nations have not disciplined their birth rates, if people as individuals could not do so? Why do not the politicians of all regimes act? They do not act because they are politicians and they are concerned with the immediate and familiar context of power; in the immediate sense, the imposition of effective birth control methods is a deprivation of the rights, liberties, and happiness of a great number of potential voters at the very next election. The politicians of dystrocracies are moreover not inclined to sympathize with the problems of the rich countries or their leaders. They also suffer a barely conscious delusion that welcomes the approaching cataclysm; since they represent large numbers of people, they believe that they might win more of the goods of life under conditions following real explosions than under the conditions of a populations explosion.
Politicians share the several vices of their followers- lack of discipline, ignorance, and the inability to cope with larger problems intellectually and practically. Even if they had plans and took steps, their followers might desert them in large numbers or might give them lip service only. Often in India, ladies of staunch and liberated type have gone about the villages preaching birth control and are greeted with interest and amusement by the village mothers who cannot understand why such fine ladies should ever become involved in such intricacies as the birth rates of the lower castes. Then also leaders frequently share the religious scruples of the masses, which, in the case of the Catholic countries, compel adherence to a birth control philosophy that permits only such birth control as makes demands on human nature which human nature is unable to fulfill.
Leaders sometimes think that they can achieve power through numbers. Now that technical weapons are so prominent in the conduct of warfare there is not the stress upon massed armies that once prevailed. It used to be thought that a high birth rate was necessary to provide ever larger levies for the armed hordes that would go to the defense of the country or attack another country when war came. The sorry experiences of large armies, poorly equipped, such as the Russian army in the first World War and of the Italian army in World War II should bury this fallacy.
Still it persists. A recent international conference on family planning in Turkey was disrupted by fanatics who demanded undestricted birthing so that "Turkey can become as populous as the Soviet Union." Similar views circulate in South America.7 The Chinese dictatorship has even more recently talked in terms of the power and glory of numbers. Rather quickly it lost its enthusiasm. But perhaps it considers itself well-supplied with bodies for any holocaust, not excepting a nuclear war.
Where the religious leaders of various lands, particularly in Latin America, southern Europe, and the United States, frown upon the control of population by artificial means, deductions are made from theological principles: it is wrong to prevent a union of sperm and egg once the parents have been licensed to copulate, and it is murder to destroy the fertilized egg once the act has been consummated. Recently there had been rumors that the outstanding group in the world defending a traditional view of birth control, namely the Roman Catholic Church, would take measures to permit various types of artificial contraception, but also very recently the Pope has seen fit to deny them. Yet half or more of Catholics practice birth control in any area where they are let to do so, and the Catholic Church permits birth control under certain circumstances, a set of circumstances which are increasing but not increasing enough to prevent the desperate crisis that is going to ensue. There exists a problem unquestionably, the, with respect to the elite of the Catholic religion: they are blocking policies that must be promptly adopted if the world order is not to be characterized by universal desperation, crowdedness, and poverty.
Passive submission to overwhelming outside demand is not enough; nor is even their verbal and moral support. The Catholic Church and all churches must convert themselves into centers for birth control information. They are in the best position of all groups except governments to act as the designated instrumentality for population control. They understand moral problems, they know the common people, they believe in the dignity of man: who can better carry on this work, with its sensitive implications to millions of private lives?
Man is so difficult to control and controls himself with such difficulty that, whenever self-disciplined submission over a period of time is required, maximum use of scientific devices to structure the environment of control must be made. Compare, for example, the enoromous compliance-campaign that would be required to persuade man of the utility and value of continence as the means of population control (something that a great many religions and secular leaders have preached for a hundred years and more) with the case of population control by means of an inch-long and hair-thin removable capsule that would, if placed beneath the skin, prevent conception for three years by timed release of a nonestrongen chemical that will not interfere with ovulation or the hormone cycle.8
The latter kind of restraint, if voluntarily undertaken, is of the same moral quality as control by self-instituted practice. The fact that self-expression is painful does not elevate it morally, unless it is believed that the average man and woman require "X" amount of suffering, that their quotient in society "A" is low, and that therefore a quantum of pain has to be slipped in here or there. But such is the idiotic reasoning of many people in opposing reforms. If the laws have to be convoked to compel people to act against their will in order to insure a kind of behaviour, then the easy voluntary way is also the more moral way.
We are in a period of uncertainty. Obviously a change in policy on the part of the religious leaders of half a billion people in the world would have marked effects on the high birth rates in a number of countries where problems of crowding and poverty are closely associated. It would also have certain effects on the conditions of life even in countries such as the United States where poverty is not so tightly associated with the birth rate and population increase, but other problems are. For every country has the problem of differential birth rates within the population; in every country a more than proportionate cost is required in the education, upbringing, medical care, and feeding of the young of the poorer and uneducated strata of society, than of the young of the educated classed, because the family skills and capital of the latter are from infancy directly applied to childraising.
This principle of Social Levitation Cost must become a matter of public concern. It holds, first, that the average social cost of bringing an infant to a kalotic adult level is inversely proportional to the kalotic level of the parents. Educated parents contribute naturally, and usually without consideration of costs, $80,000 to raise a child for twenty years in the United States, while uneducated parents contribute from their own resources $20,000.9 They pay what they can afford, and the educated can afford more. In addition, educated parents contribute their own skills, which, in ways other than affectional probably, have a greater net value. This is an averaging of experiences; there are uneducated parents whose "social services" in raising children are worth far more than the costs incurred by some educated parents.
More specifically, the differential cost to a society of raising to kalotic levels a deprived infant is equal to the difference between the average costs to the two sets of parents plus the overhead charges to a society in organizing the whole system for the purpose of making up the differential. This overhead levitational cost could be estimated at 50% of the differential. If the average of the United States, rather than the upper fourth of the people, is taken as the kalotic, educated level, then the cost per child would be $50,000 instead of $80,000; the direct levitational differential would be $80,000; and the overhead levitational cost would be $15,000 in addition. This would mean that the privilege of uneducated parents (the lowest fourth) to have a child would cost society $45,000 on the average in the United States. Using a basal kalotic formula in every country would result in heavy net expenses for social levitation. At present, in the U.S.A. perhaps half of this cost is actually being paid by the society.
Largely because of fear of being called "undemocractic," scientists have failed to develop or express this theory, which was in an aristocratic age of a century ago foreshadowed by the doctrine of "the neo-malthusianism of the rich." Indeed, the Tutors have sometimes practiced celibacy and infertility in order to set an example for the uneducated classes; far from achieving their goal, they only compounded the costs of raising the next generation. It should be quite clear by now that the Kalotic Revolution is not partial to any social class or configuration of the status quo. The bald facts have to be stated if all social elements are to have perspectives required to foresee and plan. The uneducated are in any progressive society given a great bonus for their children. The goals of kalocracy are to provide pneumos and dikeos, that is life-chances and rule of law, for rich and poor alike; but positive cooperation has to be forthcoming from poor as well as rich to reduce the immense costs of Differential Kalotic Levitation.
The opponents of a demopolicy of restraints should not be allowed to wear a humanitarian mask. When they claim a respect for human dignity that arbitrates against artificial means of birth control, they violate one of the few forms of dignity that the masses are permitted, as well as add greatly to the costs of revolution. Only a combination of hypocritical and archaic attitudes can maintain that people take away life by giving a more kalotic life to others or that the principle of not taking proto-life in any form is absolute under all circumstances. The same groups, the same leaders, the same self-styled human itarians allow people the right to conduct warfare which will only end in men killing other men. Thus, they say, "When Caesar asks you to go to war, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's", whereupon you to go war, and you kill, and you are forgiven, but "When Caesar says that you should restrain the irresponsible multiplication of lives by simple artificial means, this is an individual sin, for which you will not be forgiven by us, who speak for God." One more lie in the name of God!
There is also a feeling, again of this cataclysmic sort, in many religious groups, particularly of Hebraic, Hindu, Christian, and Muslim origins, that the world is a vale of tears; it is a place to suffer in preparation for the next world or for another existence. So it is not right or proper to try to create a paradise on earth; the real problem should be to prepare each day for the Day of Judgment. Yet this argument is contradicted by the same logic of cooperating with Caesar. Obedience to the state is said to be necessary; hence obedience to birthing restraints, if it adds to one's suffering, will store up all the more merits for heaven.
Practically no one in the murderously polite world of public discourse dilates upon those reasons for religious opposition to population restrictions that lie in the usefulness of large constituencies in achieving religious power and wealth. Whereas the rich are necessary for the religious politician largely because they manage power in ways congenial to established churches and also give financial support, the foundation for most organized religions is the poor masses. The poor are more dependent; they need religion and the services of religion more.
Religions prosper in proportion to the number of deaths, births and other such anniversaries that they commemorate. It is almost a bookkeeping operation, as cold and heartless as that may seem. The daily work of every church is mainly to carry people into the world and out of the world and to encourage holy ceremonies for increasing the traffic; the more there are, the busier they are. So, like the political leaders of the poor, the religious leaders are often carried away by the psychology of large scale.
There is also the theory found among many religious leaders that materialism is the greatest enemy of spirituality and religion. They claim that the usual reasons for restricting population growth are of a materialistic nature: poor people who love to eat and well-to-do people who want to own cars and escape from responsibility into hedonism should not be coddled nor their venal aspirations promoted. Yet it can also be argued that the obsession with an unrestrained population is crass materialism in that quantity is being promoted regardless of quality.
Furthermore, the obsession is making it impossible for people to liberate themselves from materialism, since one does not expect that a mother and father who are struggling for bits of cloth and bits of food so as to keep their family alive will will have much time for the higher pursuits of life. Actually, the highest spiritual state, as described in all world religions, comes from the independence of the spirit, the superiority of the individual soul over material things of the world, rather than from driving the soul to scrape for its existence.
To overcome the present structure of leadership that blocks population control requires that support of elements of the leadership, including the religious-political leadership, and the Tutors. Fortunately, there are signs that, among the priests, pastors, and national elites who have interests based upon maintaining the present course with respect to population control, are a number of rebels, far-seeing religious and political politists who may be called part of the counter-elite on demopolicy. They tend now to be happy with any slight change in the policy of any government or religion with respect to population. They need therefore to be supported and urged by a much more radical force. Obviously the best basis for a counter-elite is the Tutorial force of the community itself, but it should have outside support in other toparchies and in the cosmarchy so that it can provide the community with clear direction and rewards.
It is to the religious functional association boards of the world that the problem and authority for population control should be assigned. The problem is functionally adapted to the kalotic organization of pneumic groups. It is also an ecological problem that could be handled by the metropolitan communities. Its removal from the jurisdiction of nation-states will help to avoid clashes of demopolicy with historical, nation-alistic, and ethnic sensitivities. Population policy should rest upon the same basis as peace policy. Population aggression, like violent aggression, is an offense to world order. The crowding of others is a form of aggression, even as we know it in our personal contacts. Countries who have no policy and refuse to consign demopolicy to the proper organs of the Region and Cosmarchy should be considered as aggressors against the people of the world.
A code of law on population planning should be made a matter of policy everywhere. It can be a law of the First Region, with enforcement delegated to metropolitan and religious groups. It would be an exhortation, a denunciation of any secular or religious groups agitating population control, but at the same time, it should observe as closely as possible the principles of dikeos.
Having children unrestrainedly is in part an exercise of liberty, an expression of will. The right to advocate free birth practices is an aspect of liberty whose control should only be justified under rather severe circumstances, and therefore all expressions directed against the laws are permitted, even while the cosmarchy proceeds with the enactment and execution of the laws. Actually the weight of public opinion is so heavily on the side of restraint that, once the scales are tipped, efforts must be made to preserve the right to oppose the laws.
The construction of the laws themselves will have much to do with the ease of their enforcement. The key to an effective world population system would be a full informational system, a full range of free contraceptive and abortion services, and a system of licensing birth.
Throughout the world there is some kind of legal consummation of marriage. Marriage is licensed everywhere so as to consign certain disadvantages to non-marital unions. Indeed, in most of the world, marriage itself is sanctioned and licensed as an indirect means of licensing the birth of children. Until now that license on birth which is implied in the license on marriage has not been limited. Driver's tests are compulsory for driver's licenses, but parenthood tests are rare for marriage licenses.
So, the law would provide with the license on marriage the practically unquestionable right to one child. Where the union of a couple is not legally marriage, the same license to a child holds implicitly and is vested in the woman. All other children would have to be licensed separately. But there would be no limits to the rights of child-bearing, that is, the number of children. There would only be certain responsibilities that would have to be demonstrated in connection with such licenses. Just as in many places one cannot run a car without insurance, so one cannot have children without guarantees of support within the basal kalotic formula established as the minimum standard within the First Region, and subsequently within other regions.
A second and subsequent license to bring new life into the world should be contingent upon such demonstration of general freedom from hereditary disease or venereal disease as is often now the case with obtaining a permit of marriage. More significantly, the license will depend upon the probability that support can be given within the same basal kalotic formula, including the personal ability of the parent and the kalotic ability of the society to provide for the education of the young.
There would be a demoformula applicable in any given area. It would combine the personal formula, a social formula, and certain international consideration. Any formula for a given area would include specifications of how much would be expected of the individual as a guarantee of his ability to take care of a prospective infant. Considerations of per capita education and per capita income would enter into it. But there would be general equality around the world in the face of these conditions to be established for licensing.
Persons not holding licenses, and in fact all persons, would be offered free pills, clamps, and other devices, together with abortion and sterilization facilities.10 They would be granted free information and would have their Counsellors for advice. The total costs of such services would be absorbed easily within the larger savings in the net differential levitation costs.
Mild sanctions would be necessary in some cases, although the very fact of there being a demopolicy would be the most effective sanction; the presence of the demopolicy would promote self-awareness, social-awareness, procedural education, and generally health practice.11 If the first child died from any cause, the mother would regain the right to that same first birth. The laws will endeavor to honour the desire of many people for progeny of their name and hereditary constitution.
There would be penalties, however, for an unlicensed second pregnancy. If the pregnancy were reported and abortion accepted within three months of conception, no further action would be taken. If the child were born, the mother would be enrolled in a training course. She would learn many things dealing with the household, children, and work. The course would constitute a constraint that ordinary people might not desire; in any event, the experience would beneficial to mother and child. If children should not be born unless there is evidence that they can be taken care of properly, the training may be the least that society can do to take care of the second child. For mothers who wanted a second child without showing in advance that they will be responsible for its care, the discipline would be a small price to pay.
For bearing a third child without a license, sterilization of the woman would be required. (Sterilization of the father would be equally just but would be difficult to administer, because it would place the male partner under the continuous possibility of punitive conception by his wife or lover. A publically supported voluntary program of male sterilization should be pursued so that at least equal numbers of the two sexes physically participate in the limiting process.)
In effect, then, any woman can have three babies regardless of anyone's permission, and regardless of her ability economically or otherwise for birth. She has a right to all services of control and then to have three children without money, education, without promises, and without regard to demopolicy. She is, in sum, made a gift of $135,000 or the equivalent in her own currency by the world Kalocracy.
And, of course, if she wishes to qualify and is able to do so, a woman may have any number of children. Furthermore, a system of foster parenthood should be instituted whereby anyone with an unused license might transfer it over to parents who have no such license but wish to have a baby. The condition of assignment of a license is that the foster parent, who holds the original license, assume whatever responsibilities for upbringing that the parents cannot assume.
Kalotic demopolicy cannot contradict kalotic economic policy. A previous chapter has described a system of life-accounts that begins with the birth12 of an individual and gives a basal kalotic minimum during the dependent years of life. Now demopolicy and ecopolicy must be reconciled. Illegal birthing has to be discouraged, but every new-born baby has to be handled with loving care, and certainly the parents cannot be harassed while being asked to minister to their child.
The contradiction is to be reconciled by withholding the credit from the life-account in the consideration of a woman's license to bear an infant, but releasing the credit to a trustee for the baby upon notice of a pregnancy without license.
Suppose the rapid development of a region of the world; its basal kalotic level is met, and so few families are limited in size by poverty that the licensing system, if it were calculated solely on an individual basis, would no longer act as a check to undesirable population growth. In that case, and indeed from its very beginning, other components of demopolicy would play their part in the granting of licenses for childbearing.
The components in any woman's demoformula are four:
A. Her personal factor: This is computed on a score of ten, by a local board of citizens using a standard derived from a sample survey of the toal female population of child-bearing age resident within her Metropolitan Community. The survey can ascertain the kalotic capacity for childbearing of this universe of woman and divide it into deciles. Each decile scores one point, from one for the least able to ten for the most able.
B. Her community factor: This is computed by ranking each Metropolitan Community within a region on the same scale of 1 to 10, by the same method.
C. Her cosmarchic factor: This is computed by ranking the regions of all the world similarly.
D. Her regional birth rate factor: This is the average rate of increase in regional population over the latest five-year period, also discovered by way of the sample survey.
B+C The final demoformula is A + (ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ). D
Suppose a woman of high education and economic means, living in Calcutta, has borne one child and seeks a license for a second. She is scored by her local demoboard at 10. Calcutta is, unfortunately, among the least kalotic metropolitan areas of India and is scored at 1. India is scored at 1 in the world regional ranking also. Furthermore, the average annual increase of the Greater India Region is very high, 2.5%. Her personal
1+1 demoformula becomes then ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ + 10 = 10.8. 2.5
In a second example, suppose that a woman from Chicago has a personal factor of 2. But Chicago has a high community factor (9) and is in a region with a high cosmarchic factor (10). The regional birth rate, moreover, is only 2. Her formula becomes -
9 + 10 ÄÄÄÄÄÄ + 2 = 11.5. 2
The World Congress, or whatever megalarchic authority precedes it, can readily provide the final element in world demopolicy.13 It would set an annual quota of births for the world, say 20,000,000. A summary of statistics on the four demopolitical factors would enable the Congress to set the minimal score for licensing, say 8, to achieve the quota for the year. Any woman with the score of 8 or above might receive a license.
The overall application of kalotic demopolicy will bring about a general leveling off of birthing among the poorest elements of the population everywhere in the world. Owing to the greater capacity and indeed need, for higher rates in kalotic areas, the effect will be much more pronounced in precisely those parts of the world where the need for a rapid rise in kalotic standards is greatest.
It is possible for the program sketched out here to be carried out by something less than world government. Ultimately, the program would fall under Metropolises and World Religious Boards, following quotas established by the World Congress. The effects of a program of this nature, consisting of information, agitation, free services, and a legal code, would be to stabilize the population of the world first at about four billions and then at three billions, to let the world arrive more quickly at the Basal Kalotic levels, and to cut down drastically the dysfunctional effects of Differential Social Levitation Costs. If the world population stabilizes at three billions without apparent need for birthing restraints the total law should be placed in abeyance.
The Demopolicy of Kalocracy contains, in summary, several propositions and several rules:
A. Citizens, not mere human bodies, are the aim of kalotic policy. A world population of three billion citizens, living at a modest or better level, is the goal.
B. The world and every toparchy in it have a peopling problem which consists of three sub-problems: poverty, crowding, and differential social levitation costs.
C. The costs of solving the three-fold peopling problem by measures unconnected with the rate of peopling are exorbitant, relative to the other kalotic problems and their cost of solution.
D. The moral benefits of maintaining unrestricted peopling practices are incomparably less than those emanating from a limiting policy.
E. Hence every public and personal means should be taken to reduce births where the DSL costs are high. Both men and women should be persuaded of the need to practice contraception, to accept new techniques such as clamps and long-term pills, and to accept sterilization abortion as supplementary procedures under specified circumstances. The more that public and official opinion is mobilized, the less will legal restraints be used.
F. A woman should be able to pit her own will against the whole world up to the point of bearing three children, but under conditions of increasing constraint.
G. The legal formula for controlling population throughout the world should be based upon the average annual increase in different regions (D), the personal responsibility of the mother and her supporters (A), the kalotic level of each metropolitan community in its region (B), the kalotic ranking of the region within the cosmarchy (C), and the world population goals (Q) set by the overall government or cosmarchy. Where
B + C A + [ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ] - Q = > O D a license will be granted to give birth.
To win these policies will require the overturning of a powerful elite that is in command of traditional morality in the most powerful centers of the Western World - Rome, London, Bonn, New York, Washington, Sydney, Montreal, and Buenos Aires, to name some of the most important places. They will fight sometimes until the last ditch. Yet their psychology will within two decades appear scandalous, so intense is the pent-up want of the world for a vigorous demopolicy.
The new demopolicy must be achieved to convey a greater emos for the people of all countries and to increase the chances for a quick victory in the Kalotic Revolution of the world. A concentration upon the centers of resistance is necessary. An early critical move could be a crusade to win over Vatican City. The demonstrators would pour into the are from every country in the world. Divided into contingents symbolizing every beneficial effect that kalotic peopling policy will bring to the world, they would arouse world opinion and bring home to the single greatest source of opposition the need to revolutionize its position and to win for itself a new moral authority over the human spirit.
|1.||From Nathan Keyfitz, "Privilege and Poverty: Two Worlds on One Planet," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March, 1966, pp. 9-10.|
|2.||Augustus F. Kinzel, citing the studies of rats, reports precisely these reactions among convicts whom he studied. Those jailed for crimes of violence had "body buffer zones" four times as extensive as those in prison for crimes against property. Cf.New York Times, May 18, 1969 p. 49.|
|3.||Cf. Lincoln Day, Too Many Americans (Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1964).|
|4.||A survey of achievements and methods around the world is carried in Bernard Berelson, et al., eds., Family Planing and Population Programs (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196). On food and people, among the infinitude of reports, see D. Gale Johnson, The Struggle Against World Hunger (New York: Foreign Policy Assn., 1967).|
|5.||Cf. his Population, Growth, and Land Use (London : Macmillan, 1967). M. Cepede, F. Houtart, and L Grond present the same kind of arguments in their book, Population and Food (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964). They are utterly unimpressive because they rely upon "Creation" (see p.448) as a benign tool; no one can dispute that Earth can feed 5 billion bodies, perhaps 10. But what of 15 or 20, and of the catastrophes that birthing abuses can bring even at 4 billions? Earth should sing with its species, not groan under their weight. However, this same book contains many valuable critiques.|
|6.||Cf. Margaret Larkin, "Family Planning in Mexico," The Nation, Nov. 14, 1966, pp. 508-11. In the General Hospital of Mexico City the ratio of abortion to childbirth cases was 54.5%. The Asociacion Pro-Salud Maternal made a study of abortion practices among 1000 women; 307, of them admitted to from one to twenty four abortions; the total number was 6118. Still, the 40 million Mexicans of 1966 are expected to become 80 millions by 11988. Also J.M. Stycos and J.Arias, Population Dilemma in Latin America (Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 1966), p. 239.|
|7.||Stycos, op.cit., p.229.|
|8.||Jane E. Brody, New York Times, December 15, 1968, p. 10E.|
|9.||An alternate set of figures, independently arrived at, were published by the Institute of Life Insurance, New York, April, 1970. Differences with those here given are not great.|
|10.||G. Elizabeth Draper, Birth Control in the Modern World (Baltimore: Penguin, 1965). A safe, long-enduring oral contraceptive is not far off.|
|11.||Consideration of sanctions is increasing in various places of the world. The state of Haryana, India, has been discussing a bill that would inflict six month's prison or 1000 rupees fine on parents who produce more than three children. (Reuters dispatch, July 6, 1967.)|
|12.||Actually, with the pregnancy, for a child needs emotic services in utero.|
|13.||A.S.David, "Planning for Population Programs: Application from Optimal Population Theory," (unuublished manuscript, University of North Carolina, Population Center) shows how to elaborate a theory of the population optimum; it can be used to plan in detail the concept presented here.|