Hercules defeats the Hydra: During his battle with the Hydra, a monster with many snake-like heads, Hercules discovered that every time he cut off a head, two more replaced it.

We have a similar dilemma. For every person who is cut down by death, more than two new people are born. Continued exponential population growth is expected to result in a global population of at least nine billion by mid-century even though it appears that the human carrying capacity of the planet has already been far exceeded—especially if all humans are expected to rise to anywhere near current Western standards of living. Further complications will arise when the human life span is extended. For example, the long-term solution might be something very exotic—like abandoning our bodies in favor of a nonmaterial existence and spreading out into space. The short-term solution is to stop population growth as quickly for the greater good of all while at the same time providing as much individual choice as possible.

There are obstacles: Because overpopulation is incremental, certain people are like the frog being slowly heated in the kettle. They do not notice the water getting warmer until it is too late. Apathy and inertia also play their role while certain short-term market interests see a growing population as good for business. Finally there are those who are waiting for Jehovah to specify exactly how far the multiplying and being fruitful should go.

The quick solution is to institute birth credits or what I also call a “choice-based, Marketable Birth License Plan” (MBLP). This plan could immediately achieve zero population growth and solve a number of problems inherent in a global system that now produces the highest birth rate among those with the least ability to provide adequate parenting. After developing this plan, I read that the late economist Kenneth Boulding once suggested the idea of birth credits, but I was never able to find any details. Because of its simplicity others have probably thought of it too. If the plan had already long been in practice people today would accept it as reasonable, and it would have regulated the world’s human population in a most equitable manner. I made some tentative informal efforts to introduce the plan to China and India in 1997, which I will be following up on through this web site. The plan is more fully explained in all of its ramifications in the printed version of this book but here is the basic idea:

Demographers determine what level of fertility is needed to insure zero population growth. Birth credits are issued to every person who has not yet had a child. These credits can be sold, purchased, or given away. If a couple wants more than children than is allotted they would have to buy more credits. If someone does not want children they can sell their credits. Ironically, even though the credits are “marketable,” the plan would mostly benefit the poor for these reasons:

1. The rich and affluent middle classes maintain close to or less than replacement level fertility for their own reasons.
2. If the poor had fewer children they would become less poor, and have more opportunities in life to get ahead. This has a tremendous effect on raising the standard of living and quality of life for the poor and their (fewer) children.
3. Birth credits would not be hoarded for speculative purposes since as a birth rate drops, the credits would probably fall in cost. Also there should be a rule that causes birth credits purchased beyond the original allotment to become void after a certain number of years
4. Birth credits will never cost more than a tiny fraction of what it costs to actually raise a child. Someone who cannot afford extra credits cannot afford extra children.
5. Someone receiving birth credits will have something of value they did not have before. They can sell this, and increase their assets.
6. Inducements of varying levels would provide flexibility so that most people would not feel they were suffering undue coercion. For example, opting for sterilization would result in the highest payment, while simply agreeing to use birth control would result in the lowest (or deferred) payment.

Even though individual choice would still be preserved, and the benefit to all of society is incalculable, any attempt to initiate birth credits would meet with fierce resistance. My wife, Maya Arth, distributed a written survey at Stetson University in our hometown of DeLand, Florida, to give a preliminary indication of public attitudes toward birth credits. As she quickly discovered from the 70 respondents, including mostly well-educated professionals and teachers, prevailing attitudes and beliefs would create a formidable obstacle to its implementation. Unfortunately this also happens to be the case in varying degrees with these proven and widely touted family planning methods that are also clearly in the public interest:

1. Providing sex and relationship counseling from an early age.
2. Making contraceptives and other family planning options freely available from puberty.
3. Improving economic conditions and civil rights for everyone.
4. Improving the status and education of women.
5. Raising the average age for marriage and childbearing.

It is compassionate and reasonable to do all of these things now. Unfortunately, even with vigorous efforts in all these categories it is likely that the world’s population will grow to nine billion from its current 6.4 billion.

Population growth is both a global problem and a national problem. Immigration into the U.S. has not done much to alleviate the impact of global population growth. In fact, it has had the opposite effect because of the much greater impact on the environment from the higher levels of consumption and waste in the United States.

In fact, the U.S. has the highest growth rate of all major industrialized countries. According to the U.S. Census, the country grew by 2.8 million people in 2002, with one million of this due to legal immigration. Including illegal immigrants, the U.S. population has already passed 300 million, with 87% of this growth having occurred in the last 50 years. There is also an annual increase of an estimated 700,000 people due to illegal immigrants, who are primarily Hispanic and have a high fertility rate. In fact, the Hispanic population of the U.S. is expected to nearly triple by 2050, which is six times higher than the overall projected rate of U.S. growth including Hispanics. Obviously, Latin America’s population explosion directly impacts the U.S.

Without immigration, the U.S. could stabilize its population within a few years. Instead, the U.S. is projected to grow by nearly 50 percent—to 420 million—by 2050. For environmental reasons we must reduce the birth rate and immigration into the U.S. while at the same time seriously addressing global population growth. However, this issue should not be used to discriminate against Hispanics or other minorities, as is sometimes the case.

In the meantime, young people are not getting the information and contraceptives they need to prevent conception and delay parenthood. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the teenage pregnancy rate in the U.S. is 83.6 per 1,000 in 2000. This is eight times higher than Japan and almost seven times higher than Italy, the Netherlands, or Spain. The U.S. government’s response has been to double the funds for abstinence-only education, while neglecting programs that provide information and access to contraception, even though a certain number of teenagers will always have sex no matter what. State health officials in Minnesota did an independent evaluation of an abstinence-only pilot program in 2004. Instead of having the intended effect, sexual activity doubled among the junior high students who took part in the program called Education Now and Babies Later.

The step-by-step approach to family planning should be pursued with great intensity, but it is unfortunately too little too late. Zero population growth should be at the top of the global agenda, and extraordinary measures are called for. The tragedy of the commons is graphically illustrated below with this profile of exponential population growth.