Science
in Christian PerspectiveScience
in Christian Perspective
Sociobiology and Population Problems: Perspectives*
C. RICHARD TERMAN
Laboratory of Endocrinology and Population Ecology
Biology Department College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
From: JASA 26
(March 1974): 6-13.
*Supported by Public Health Research Grants MH-08289, HD-04787, and
Research Career
Development Award HD-07391
A Time of Crisis
We are living in a time of population crisis. The human population is growing
too rapidly for the well being of mankind. The pressures of population increase
are basic to the problems of pollution and deterioration of the
natural environment
and in my opinion any program to correct the latter while ignoring the former
is doomed to failure. The present growth of the world's human population is 2%
per annum. This may not seem like much, but it is clearly alarming
when one considers
that such a growth rate from the time of Christ would have resulted
in a current
population of over 20 million individuals in place of each person now
living and
100 individuals for each square foot of earth's surface.1
Every species of animal has an inherent maximum ability to increase in numbers
referred to as its biotic potential. Increase at a rate equal to or even less
than the biotic potential can reach fantastic proportions. For example, it has
been calculated that bacteria reproducing every 20 minutes, with 100% survival,
would in 36 hours produce a layer one foot deep over the entire earth. Within
the next hour of such continued growth, we would be literally
"over our heads"
in bacteria. Given a few thousand years, any species of plant or animal growing
exponentially, or at the compound interest rate, would weigh as much
as the visible
universe and he expanding outward at the speed of light2,3
When one realizes the tremendous power of population increase and the fearsome consequences of continued unchecked
growth, the
need for basic information on the dynamics of populations becomes evident. The
desire to understand what makes populations "tick"
motivated the research
of many workers in the field of Animal Ecology long before the
popular realization
of this population "information gap". Interest centered on the Norway
Lemming, the Varying Hare, the Arctic Fox, the Snowy Owl, and voles of various
species because of the great fluctuations known to occur in their
population numbers.
The Norway Lemming, for example, is not only firmly established in the folklore
of the region, but has also gained worldwide notoriety because every
3 to 4 years
its populations increase to tremendous numbers following which they
may move over
the countryside like a tidal wave in a mass emigration consuming the crops in
their path and being followed and preyed upon by hawks, cats, dogs
and other predators.
The survivors of these marches upon reaching the sea, plunge into the water and
swim until they become exhausted and drown. Charles Elton4 in his
book "Voles,
Mice and Lemmings" presents documentary evidence that its November, 1868,
a steamer traveling up the Trondheim Fjord, took fifteen minutes to
pass through
a shoal of swimming lemmings.
Evidence of the concern these wildly growing populations brought to the human
inhabitants of the area is shown by the following prayer the clergy pronounced
against them:
I exercise you, pestiverous worms, mice, birds, or
locusts, or other animals, by God the father, that you
depart immediately from these fields or vineyards, or waters and dwell in them no longer, but go away to those places in
which you can
harm no person; and on the part of Almighty Cod, cursing you withersoever you
shall go, daily wasting away and decreasing, till no remains of you are found
in any place; which may he vouchsafe to do, who shall come to judge the living
and the dead, and the world by fire. Amen.4
The notorious fluctuators mentioned above draw attention to themselves and as
such misrepresent the facts with respect to population phenomena.
Generally speaking,
species of animals do not increase to abundances which are excessive for their
habitats, and consequently reflect controlling influences. The populations of
most species are regulated prior to levels which would be suicidal for them and
at which mass starvation or mass mortality from other causes may
occur. The mechanisms
of regulation vary but three basic forces have been shown to
influence population
size. These forces are (1) natality (births) the force for increase,
(2) mortality
(deaths) the force for decrease and (3) movements (immigration-in, or
emigration-out).
While it is clearly evident that these three major forces influence
populations,
factors governing their actions are not so evident. For example,
predation, disease,
and starvation obviously result in removal of individuals from
populations. Data
are accumulating, however, implicating influences developed
intrinsically in each
population which may change the vulnerability of individuals to
mortality factors
or may act to control growth via other means.
Experimental Studies of Population Dynamics
For the past several years, we have been studying the characteristics of growth
and control in laboratory populations of Prairie Deermice (Peroinyscus mauiculatus
bairdii). This is a small brown mouse, many species of which occur across North
America. The data
In research on mice, control of growth in all populations was achieved either by cessation of reproduction or by failure of the young to survive.
available from natural population studies of this mouse indicate that outbreaks
rarely occur and that populations are regulated within a rather narrow range of
variability. Deermice thus appear to be sensitive to factors
regulating population
growth and, as such, seem an appropriate species for studies of
population regulation.
After selection of the species, we approached the problem first by attempting
to record the characteristics of deermouse population growth per se
in the laboratory.
We placed four pairs of mice in each of several circular pens,
enclosing 20 square
feet of floor space, covered with a layer of wood shavings. Eight
nest boxes were
arranged in a circular pattern in each pen and food and water were available in
excess at all times (Figure 1). Alternating 12 hours periods of bright and dim
light were programmed for each enclosure. Each population was
inspected at regular
intervals and birth, pregnancies, and the spatial distribution of individuals
were recorded.
Under the conditions mentioned above, one might expect an "explosion"
of population growth, particularly since pairs of deermice housed in individual
cages can produce a litter of from five to eight young every 25 days
and protection
from predation, disease and environmental fluctuation was provided.
Such uncontrolled
population growth did not occur, however. Rather, while it took each population
a variable period of time to control its growth, such control was clearly
and distinctly achieved.
Not only was growth control distinct, but once achieved, it was of
long duration.
We do not know how long such a complete shut down of population
growth would continue
since we have not routinely maintained any populations more than 300
days following
cessation of growth. However, our present information indicates that
it is extremely
rare for young to be born or to survive in a population during this
time period.
Another very interesting finding from these studies is that although
the populations
were maintained under identical conditions, the number of animals
present in each
when growth was curtailed varied widely. Some populations stopped
growing at less
than 10 animals while others grew to more than 60! Clearly, those
factors determining
population control were not influenced directly by numbers per se.
In spite of the wide variations in numerical levels when population growth was
controlled, certain measurements revealed similarities between populations.
Control of growth in all populations was achieved by either cessation
of reproduction
(most frequent) or by failure of the young to survive. Mortality of young was
typically due to either abandonment by their mothers or to excess
"care".
Reproductive females frequently interfered with each other in the care of young
and occasionally, two or more females would attempt to retrieve or carry young
in their mouths to different nest boxes. This resulted in continual moving of
young and during the process more than one female might grasp the
same young and
attempt to carry it to different nest boxes! Such handling eventually resulted
in the death of the young following which they were usually consumed.
The reproductive attributes of the animals were also similar between
populations.
For instance, an average of only two females produced young even
though each population
averaged 6 or more times that many. Even more interesting, only 5-15%
of the females
born into the populations and living longer than 100 days produced young. This
phenomenon is particularly intriguing since mice maintained as mated pairs in
single cages may have young prior to 60 days of age. Thus, something
about living
in a population which is controlling its growth inhibited reproductive function
in 85-95% of the females and did so irrespective of the number of mice present
when each population stopped growing! Such inhibitory influences were
also evidenced
by the reproductive organs of both males and females. Table 1 gives the average
weights of the reproductive organs of mice born into populations and reaching
at least 100 days of age compared to mice of similar age reared in pairs from
weaning in a cage
separated from the populations. None of the females used in this analysis had
ever had young. The reproductive organs (ovaries, uteri, testes and vesicular
glands) of mice reared in bisexual pairs averaged 3 or four times as large as
those of population animals.
What is the reason for these severe inhibitory effects related to reproduction?
Why do populations stop growing? Is one response the result of the other or are
unknown influences responsible for both? We are not sure of the answers to these
questions but we do have some information suggesting at least a partial answer.
Our logic is as follows; Growth of our experimental populations was controlled
at markedly different numerical levels under identical conditions of
the physical
environment while food and water were available in surplus. Since
similar population,
reproductive and other physiological characteristics were exhibited
between populations,
control of growth must be related to behavioral influences developed
intrinsically
in each population.
At the present time we have no clear information as to what these
behavioral factors
are which stimulate population regulation. Social behavior would seem to he of
importance. A logical assumption might be that aggressive behavior
might be directly
involved. However, our data indicate that very little overt aggressive behavior
takes place in the populations and that which does occur is expressed
toward only
a few individuals. Other behaviors have been noted, however. Two are
most obvious
and, perhaps, indicative of changes in the populations related to growth. These
are the development of food hoarding behavior and the crowding
together of large
numbers of animals.
Food hoarding is the removal of food pellets by the mice from the
central hopper
where they are normally added. These pellets are transferred or
"hoarded"
to some location within the enclosure. An adult female (usually one
of the females
used in founding the population) typically initiates hoarding behavior although
a few other mice may eventually participate. The hoard is not
defended and other
members of the population are permitted to eat the food as long as they remain
at the site of the hoard. If, however, food is removed from the hoard
to be eaten
elsewhere, the mouse so doing is immediately chased by one of the boarders, the
food taken away and returned to the hoard. If, during this process, the chased
mouse returns to the hoard with the food, there is no further interference from
the boarder-guardian and the food may be consumed at the site of the
hoard. Hoarding
and maintenance of the hoard appears to be an attempt to structure or organize
the physical environment and individuals of the population in accordance with
a pattern determined by the boarders.
Table 1
Comparisons of the weights (mg) of the reproductive organs of
population and control mice5
Organ
Control
Population Comparison
(Mean± SE)
(Mean ± SE)
P
Ovaries (Paired)
7.01 t .62
2.04 ± .25
<.005
Uterus
25.14 ± 2.49
6.09 ± 1.13
<.001
Testes (Paired)
202.24 ± 6.45
69.98 ± 20.22
<.001
Vesicular Glands (Paired) 151.89 ± 10.06
27.59 ± 14.87
<.001
SE Standard Error of the Mean, P=Prrobability of Calculated
"t" value
In approximately 95% of the populations, such behavior preceded
cessation of growth.
We are continuing to study this behavior to sec if it is causal or
merely symptomatic
of those forces bringing about cessation of population growth.
"Huddling" is another of the behaviors observed. As each population
grew, the animals began to aggregate in one or two locations within
the enclosure.
Such behavior began at variable time intervals prior to cessation of growth and
in some populations, 95% of the mice combined in one aggregate!
Huddling appears
to be an attempt on the part of the mice to lose individuality. The
animals involved
spent most of the time sitting and sleeping and occasionally leave briefly to
eat or drink. The "huddlcrs" are frequently walked over by
other "active"
members of the population who on occasion have been observed to rake shavings
over the huddle! At the moment, we do not know what relationship
aggregation behavior
has to population regulation. It may be a result of altered
physiological or hormonal
factors or, indeed, may be involved in the production of such alterations.
The above information has been obtained from studies of populations
as they grew
from a few founding animals to the time at which growth was
controlled. With this
background of information on population growth available, we have
begun an approach
utilizing experimental manipulation to understand more clearly the
phenomena described.
Two of these experiments have produced exciting results which are pertinent to
this discussion.
Given the evidence that inhibition of reproductive maturation and function is
related to population growth, a logical consideration is whether or
not such inhibition
is permanent. Our data indicated that if the animals remained within
the populations,
they would remain reproductively nonfunctional. We, therefore,
removed inhibited
males and females from their populations and paired them with fertile
mates. Other,
nonreproductive males and females were paired with similar animals
from a different
population.
Twenty-five percent of the population animals paired with fertile
mates produced
young within 30 days and 75% became parents within approximately 90
days following
pairing. None of the males and females paired from different
populations reproduced
within 30 days and it was not until 180 days subsequent to pairing
that 75% reproduced.
This experiment indicated that most mice could become reproductive if removed
from the population and paired with fertile mates. A period of
physiological and
behavioral adjustment following removal from the populations appears
to he necessary
prior to reproduction and this may he likened to a delayed puberty.
Further this
reproductive reorganization which occurs following pairing apparently
is dependent
upon some kind of mutual stimulation among the paired animals. This is shown by
the fact that none of the pairs in which both the male and female
were from populations
reproduced within 30 days. Further, the time required for reproduction by 75%
of these pairs approximated twice as long as that required by
population animals
paired with fertile mates. Thus, animals from different populations
who were paired
with each other lacked the reproductive "mistique" in their
relationships
as evidenced by population animals paired with fertile mates! The
results of this
experiment
If the present growth rate continues, in 30 or 40 years, one out of every 10 persons ever born will be living at that time!
demonstrated once again the influence of the population in the
prevention of reproduction
by animals which were capable of reproducing once removed from the population
situation. It is also worth remembering that these inhibitory influences were
operative in the presence of surplus food and water.
A second group of very interesting results was obtained from an
experiment designed
to inquire into the mechanisms of communication which must be occurring in the
populations. Communication by olfactory cues seemed a logical
mechanism to examine
because many animals depend to a great extent on the sense of smell to sample
the environment and many release chemical messengers called
"pheromones".
I decided to test the possibility that pheromones released by animals
in our experimental
populations might be responsible for the inhibition of reproductive maturation
and function observed. In order to do this, we paired 21-day-old male
and female
mice and kept them until they were 100 days of age on each of the
following types
of bedding: (a) shavings soiled by populations at asymptote, (h)
shavings soiled
by reproducing bisexual pairs, and (c) shavings unsoiled by mice. The shavings
were changed once per week. Records were kept of the numbers of pairs in each
treatment which reproduced and, following sacrifice, the reproductive
organs were
weighed and compared. The results were startling! Deermiec reared on shavings
soiled by populations had a higher reproductive rate and generally
larger reproductive
organs than those maintained on shavings soiled by isolated bisexual pairs or
on clean shavings. For example, 70% of the pairs maintained on
population shavings
produced young by 100 days of age. Only 30% of the pairs reared on
clean shavings
reproduced by the same age. These results demonstrated that although
females and
males in the populations were inhibited reproductively, there were materials on
the shavings of these same populations which stimulated such
development and function
in animals using those shavings as bedding outside of the population.
These data
further emphasize the inhibiting influence of the population environment even
in the presence of such materials since less than 15% of the females and males
in the populations reach sexual maturity.
What does all this mean? Does it fit together and if so-how? A summary of the
"state" of the science may help to point the way to the
answers to some
of these questions.
The information obtained thus far from experimental laboratory
studies of several
species is that populations do not continue to increase indefinitely
even though
provided with excess food and water. Populations of small mammals as well as of
most other forms characteristically grow in a manner described by the logistic
curve with growth beginning slowly, rapidly increasing and eventually slowing
markedly or completely ceasing (Figure 2). This leveling off of the population
growth curve is referred to as the population asymptote. An
understanding of the
mechanisms
by which population growth is controlled is far from complete.
There are,
however, certain additional characteristics of populations at asymptote which
are noteworthy in this respect. The first such characteristic is that
the numbers
of animals present when growth is controlled varies widely between populations
even though conditions of the physical environment are maintained as
nearly identical
as possible. A second characteristic related to the first is that in spite of
the marked differences in numerical levels when growth is controlled,
the physiological
alterations appear to be similar between populations. For example, the weights
of the adrenal glands and spleens of animals from asymptotic populations tend
to be larger and the eosinophil numbers and weight and activity of reproductive
organs are less than for isolated pair controls. These data, therefore, suggest
that those factors which control the growth of populations may
produce physiological
effects directly related to the approach of a population to asymptote and not
to the numbers of animals present per se Thus, density is relative to
social factors
and we must think of the numbers of animals in a population in a qualitative as
well as in a quantitative sense. Mechanisms of control thus appear to
be related
to a kind of "social pressure" developing intrinsically in
each population
which may he communicated through one or more of the senses of touch,
smell, sight,
hearing and taste. These stimuli are received in the brain and interpreted in
some way by the ventral part of the brain (the hypothalamus). The hypothalamus
is involved in controlling the pituitary gland, the master gland of
the endocrine
system, which influences the development of reproductive capacity.
Normal release
of hormones concerned with the maturation of the reproductive organs
may be prevented.
These are merely theoretical ideas as yet. We are continuing to
explore the complete
system involved including the behavioral patterns triggering the response and the neural and endocrinological mechanisms producing
population control.
Human Population Problems
With this background of what is known about experimental laboratory
populations,
let us now consider briefly the problems of the human population. Assuming that
the first "man" appeared between 1,600,000 and 600,000 years ago, the
world population is now in the logarithmic phase of a typical growth
curve after
a long period of slow increase,-similar in many respects to the
theoretical curves
of growth of experimental populations (Figure 2). This rapid increase
in the human
population is largely the result of advances in medical knowledge
which have centered
attention upon decreasing mortality while doing very little to
regulate natality3.
To illustrate the rapidity with which the world's population has grown-it took
from the beginning of man until 1850 to reach a population of one
billion people.
By 1930 (80 years later) a population of 2 billion was attained. Thirty years
after that (1960) the world's population was 3 billion. By 1975 (15 additional
years), four billion people will inhabit this earth. In 1968 we passed the 3.5
billion mark. Some predictions are that shortly after the year 2000
we will have
twice as many people on earth as in 1968!
Population growth tends to gain momentum. The time required for the population
to double is rapidly decreasing. Once the population reached 1 billion in 1850,
doubling to 2 billion took place in 80 years. The next doubling to 4 billion is
estimated by 1975, requiring 45 years. At our present rate of growth
(2%), doubling
is achieved at a 35-37 year rate. From the time of "Adam and Eve"
until
now, man's population has doubled 31 times. If it doubles 16 more times, there
will be 1 square yard for each man, woman, and child on earth7.
The following clarifies our present situation and is even more
alarming. If there
have been almost 77 billion births since the Stone Age, then almost 1
out of every
22 persons born since then is alive today, and if the present growth
rate continues,
in 30 or 40 years, one out of every 10 person ever born will be living at that
time!8
The present growth rate will not continue indefinitely and must not
continue any
longer if we are to avoid disaster from many quarters. The three
forces, natality,
mortality and movement I mentioned previously as influencing the populations of
other organisms, likewise influence the human population. If we hurry, however,
we may still have time to regulate the action of these forces as they control
our population.
Obviously, movement offers no solution to our population problems. We are all
confined together on our "Space Ship Earth" and no practical means of
escape are available to us.
This leaves only the forces of natality and mortality to determine
our population
future.
Factors which may produce sufficient mortality to at least temporarily curb the
population growth have been suggested as follows:
1. The possibility of release upon us of some lethal agent in time of war which
could kill a high proportion of the population.
2. An outbreak of disease capable of decimating the population.
3. The rapid deterioration of our environment and accumulation of
toxic products.
4. Exhaustion of the food supply.
I will not discuss the first 3 of these factors producing population
control through
increased mortality. They are all effective producers of mortality
and the probability
of their action increases as population growth continues unchecked.
I wish to discuss briefly the mortality factor which has already begun to take
its awful toll and will increase its effective action as time goes on. I speak
of the problem of starvation. Present estimates are that at least
one-half billion
people are undernourished (deficient in calories or slowly
starving)'. Estimates
of the number actually perishing annually from starvation begin at 4
million and
go up dependent upon the official definitions of starvation which may conceal
the true magnitude of hungers' contribution to the death rate.
Some feel that the battle to feed the world population is now lost and that by
1985 we will have world wide famines in which hundreds of millions of
people will
starve. Merely to maintain the presently inadequate nutrition levels, the food
requirements of Asia, Africa and Latin America will conservatively increase by
26% in the 10 year period measured from 1965 to 197510. World food production
must double in the period 1965-2000 to stay even. It must triple if nutrition
is to he brought up to minimal levels. It is evident that we must
place top priority
on development of dietary supplements, development of high yield, high nutrient
content food crops, maximum food production in this country and rapid
and effective
training in the know how of food production in food-stress areas of
the world.
Unfortunately, even with increased attention given to increasing food
production
in the world, many authorities agree that it is doubtful that
sufficient changes
can be made fast enough to prevent mass starvation. Further, the need
for additional
food resources will continue to expand unless something is done about natality.
In a report published in 1969 summarizing the findings of the
President's Science
Advisory Committee on the World Food Supply, the following statement
was made:
It was decided that the time period of two decades, namely 1965-1985,
would likely
he the most critical period of the problem to be experienced. One of
two conditions
will probably become apparent by the end of this 20 year span in the developing
nations with which we are generally concerned. ( 1) Either the
population growth
will have been brought under control and a balance will have been
developed between
the population and the food supply, or (2) some nations, possibly
many, will have
passed the crest and will be accelerating on a declining grade of malnutrition,
economic deterioration, and political instability to the point where
no reasonable
solution to the problem can be found.11
Thus, it is evident that the birth rate must he curbed. This may he
achieved voluntarily
or involuntarily.
At the present time we have little data suggesting
that intrinsic mechanisms of population control may produce sterility in human
populations similar to that found in the experimental populations of deermice.
In a sense, the
We must reach the point through legislative means when the financial and social rewards will cause each couple to limit its family.
human population possesses the capability of developing such intrinsic mechanisms
of control
is only academic because if our experimental data tell us anything with respect
to the human population, it is that we must regulate before such mechanisms of
control operate. The simple reason is that most of us would not wish
to live under
the conditions which would exist at that time.
The human population should, therefore, he regulated at some level commensurate
with the quality of life desired. While each culture may vary as to
what is considered
the quality of life, all peoples desire freedom from hunger, disease
and the opportunity
to work out a rewarding future for each individual and his family.
How can we achieve such a regulation of the human population while maintaining
as little interference with the freedom of individuals as possible? Of course,
this is the area where the scientist speaks only as any other
citizen, but possibly
with a greater sense of urgency.
The importance of birth control education with emphasis on the
principles of population
biology at the high school, college and adult education levels, as well as in
the home, cannot be exaggerated. A recent study at Cornell University revealed
an alarming lack of personal responsibility for the future population situation
and a level of ignorance of the biology of sex unexpected on the part
of the "educated"12.
Sixtyfive percent of those responding to a questionnaire indicated
that they wanted
3 or more children in their families (26% wanted more than 3
children). A re-orientation
of social values and attitudes regarding births is urgently needed. We need an
individual awareness of the tragedies associated with too many babies
and rising
social pressure against more than 2 or 3 per family.
We must make available to all, irrespective of marital status, the information
and techniques with adequate medical advice to prevent unwanted
conception. Recent
information supplied by the "Commission of Population Growth and America's
Future" indicated that approximately 19% of all births during 1960-65 were
unwanted. True, many of these "unwanted" babies became wanted. In my
opinion we as Christians and "moral" people do not have the right to
withhold birth control information and techniques, which have largely
been obtained
by public funds, under the assumption that to release such
information would encourage
immorality or promiscuity. Pregnancy should not be regarded as a punishment. We
must think of the postnatal life of the unwanted child-not punishment for the
unmarried mother.
Unfortunately, availability of such information and techniques of birth control
on a world-wide basis is not enough. Planned parenthood is not
population control
for the simple reason that too many parents may desire too many
children for the
good of the population.
We must reach the point through legislative means (tax rewards, etc.) when the financial and social rewards will cause each
couple
to limit its family.
To young people, I can only apologize that we of my generation have allowed the
population and the abuse of our environment to reach such a sorry
state. We urgently
need your aid in preserving and making available to all those
physical and spiritual
requisites which make life more than mere existence. We must succeed or we may
be witnesses and contributors to man's inhumane treatment of his fellows on a
scale never seen before. We must not reach the condition referred to
in a recent
speech by Dr. James Bonner, California Institute of Technology, when
he stated:
We will, I suspect, begin to regard the starving populations of the
underdeveloped
nations as a race or species apart, people totally different from us as indeed
they will he. 'They are just animals' we will say, 'and a serious reservoir of
disease.' The inevitable culmination of the two cultures will be that the one
culture (the rich) will devour the other.11
What about the U.S. population? The April 1 census has shown our population at
204,765,770. Figures recently published by the Commission of Population Growth,
and the American Future show that our population is increasing at the rate of
6,000 per day or over 2,000,000 per year. Our current rate of
increase will bring
us to 300,000,000 by around the year 2008. While our rate of increase
has slowed
considerably and has been a cause for optimism in the press and
elsewhere, there
are at least two additional considerations which cloud such optimism.
The first consideration is that the number of people in the child bearing age
is increasing. These are babies from the post war baby boom who have grown up.
Even if the average family size drops to a 2 children, and there is
no indication
that it will, the population will still be increasing by the year 2000.
The second consideration is clearly illustrated in the following taken from the
Eli Lilly Company News Letter:
If all the people of the world could he reduced proportionately into
a theoretical
town of 1,000 people, the picture would look something like this: In this town
there would be 60 Americans (6%), with the remainder of the world represented
by 940 persons...The 60 Americans would have half the income of the entire town with the ether
940 dividing the other half. (About 350 of these would be practicing
Communists,
and 370 ethers would he under Communistic domination.) White people would total
303, with 697 being non-white. The 60 Americans would have 15 times
as many possessions
per person as all the rest of the world. The Americans would produce 60 percent
of the town's fend supply although they eat 72 percent above the maximum fend
requirements . . . Since most of the 940 non-Americans in the town
would be hungry
most of the time, it would create ill feelings toward the 60
Americans who would
appear to be enormously rich and fed to the point of sheer disbelief
by the great
majority of the townspeople. The Americans would also have a disproportionate
share of the electric power, fuel, steel, and general equipment. Of
the 940 non-Americans,
200 would have malaria, cholera, typhus, and malnutrition. None of
the 60 Americans
would get these diseases or probably ever be worried about them.11
Conservative estimates are that the average child born into the United States
will put at least 25 times as much stress on the environment as a child born in
India due to our high rate of production, consumpion
We must not utilize clever interpretations of the Scriptures to quiet our concerns and lull us into complacency regarding ecological problems.
and waste disposal. Clearly this proportionate use of the
world's resources,
many of which are nonrenewable, cannot continue. Serious questions
have been raised
as to whether it is possible to raise today's world population to a standard of
living comparable to ours. Clearly, the longer population control is
delayed the
more difficult and unlikely the sharing of the "quality"
things of life
and the more certain that the standard of living which we consider
basic may have
to be lowered.
The social, political, ethical and religious implications of the problems which
face us in the regulation of our population are multiple and complex. Many of
these problems do not have clearly discernible answers. For example,
what legislation
will be most effective in regulating reproduction and yet consistent with the
dual principles of freedom of the individual and his responsibility to society?
How can the necessity for population regulation be impressed on the so-called
developing nations, which have the highest birth rates, but which regard such
attempts as interference in their private affairs and suppression by
the developed
nations?
What are acceptable methods of birth control?
1. Prevention of union of sperm and egg (abstinence, coitus isiferroptos, condoms,
diaphragms, anti-ovulation materials, etc.).
2. Prevention of implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterine
wall (IUD's,
morning after techioques, etc.).
3. Removal of the implanted fertilized egg (embryo) up to some stage
of development
(abortion).
These are difficult questions. Urgency requires that we make decisions without
satisfactory answers. Make no mistake about it, our population will
be controlled
either by mortality or a reduction in natality. As Christians and
humanitarians,
we cannot accept the former means. The choice for a short time is still ours,
but we must act! We have the techniques to prevent catastrophe, do we have the
foresight?
What can we do as conservative evangelical Christians and members of
the American
Scientific Affiliation? Certainly, we must face problems squarely and
realistically.
There is an ecological crisis. We must not utilize clever
interpretations of the
Scriptures to quiet our concerns and lull us into complacency
regarding ecological
problems. In the minds of some, "Man is here to keep nature
running smoothly".
More realistically man is part of nature and the biosphere and
unfortunately the
data indicate that much of man's interaction with nature has been
disruptive.
Granted that many of our environmental problems are basically due to
man's being
out of harmony with God, solutions to the problems of population and
environmental
deterioration cannot wait upon the correction of man's basic problem.
This involves
a conscientious stewardship in which man is regarded as part of God's creation
and his ecological as well as social actions of moral concern and
responsibility.
In light of our Christian commitment, we must become involved in seeking solution to the problems besetting
us. Perhaps the American
Scientific Affiliation
is here
"for such 'a time as this".
REFERENCES
1Market, C. L. 1966. Biological limits on population growth.
Bioscience 16:859-862.
2MacArthur, fi. H. and J. H. CouncIl. 1966. The Biology of Populations. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 200p.
3McElrny, W. H. 1969. Biomedical aspects of population control.
Bioscience 19:19-23.
4Eltnn, C. 1942. Voles, Mice and Lemmings. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 496p.
5Terman, C. B. 1969. Weights of selected organs of deermice (Peronyscus maisiesdatus
bairdii) from asymptotic
laboratory
populations. J. Mamm,
50:311320.
6Milne, A. 1962.
On a theory of natural control of insect population. J. Theoretical Biol. 3:19-50. 7Miles, B. E. 1971.
Man's population
predicament. Pop. Bull.
26:1-39.
8Howard, W. E. 1969. The population crisis is here now.
Bioscience 19:779-784.
9Ehrlich, P. H. and J. P. Holdren. 1969. Population and panaceas, a
technological
perspective. Bioscience 19: 1065-1071.
10Paddock, W. and P. Paddock.
1967. Famine
1975! Little, Brown & Co., Boston.
11Robinson, H. F. 1969.
Dimensions of the
world food crisis. Bioscience 19:2429.
12van Tienhoven, A., T. Eisner
and F. Rosenblatt.
1971.
Education and the population explosion. Bioscience 21: 16-19.