| Popis: |
In this commentary, King et al. are cited for expressing the concern that fertility decline is too slow and ecological conditions are unprecedented in their deterioration. Today's situation is described by them as just a few countries having severely compromised their natural resources and the resultant inability to feed their populations. Malthusian threats are not just reruns of complaints, but very real, because food productivity options have reached their limits. Technological solutions to food scarcity issues are viewed by King et al. as not feasible. Consumerism is rising and so is the depletion of resources for producing consumer goods. The recommended solution is to reconceptualize public health within a long-term ecologically balanced framework. Confusion about environmental consequences is viewed as widespread and as fueled by vested interests opposed to changing religious authority, political power, institutional positions, ever expanding trade, and established priorities for health care. Taboos about a one-child policy are perpetuated as a means of relieving anxiety and preserving a short-term view. Taboos impede the acceptance of the need for action. Carrying capacity has become intertwined with the ability to purchase outside a country's borders sufficient food to feed national populations. Fertility control is an emotional issue. King et al. state the obvious by stating that individual rights cannot ignore ecological constraints. It is argued that extreme measures are necessary for rapid reduction of fertility both within the overpopulated South and the massively consuming North. The prevailing models of development reflect the excesses of the North and South. King et al. recommend action that is informed by a composite understanding of demographic, ecological, sociological, and economic conditions. Rwanda's civil war is the present day example of what the future may hold. |
