thumbnail of One plus one equals three; 13; And For our Grandchildren
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
One plus one you equals three me for. Any gun you owe money. When it was me me being in you know I was going out you know and I'm with you. One thing I wanted to go. It is estimated that in 16:50 there were four hundred and seventy million people in the world. It took two centuries for that figure to double. It took only one century to double again. Today there are well over three and a half billion of us sharing this planet. Demographers tell us that by the year 2000 the world population will swell to almost seven billion. This series of programs is about this problem
about what happens because one plus one equals three. For. Not trusting population should make a fundamental panacea world is vastly over populated states especially overpopulated that we have. Should we do some American success first and stop yelling. Right. We can support you. There will still be there will still be there will still be less population control. Just why do you want to try and see our credit.
If you don't know that do. Dr Alan good mocker president of Planned Parenthood of world population. The web is a finite place I think that our survey of outer space has shown the impossibility of exporting a meaningful number of people from the earth to uninhabited planets because obviously without oxygen and with an entirely different kind of. Environment we can survive. Therefore we have to make the world do. And since it is a finite place you can't stretch it. We can just have so many people living on it now current world population is approximately three point six billion people. There is argument as to whether you can accommodate eight or 10 or 15 or 30. I
think nobody knows but I think all of us would make the observation that you're going to change life materially and for most of us undesirably if you attempt to people the earth with hordes in terms of 8 or 10 billion or more people. Again I'm not going to get me I am. Not my family. And I don't want. We felt that my point was not to eat meat. Dr Paul Silverman physician World Health Organization advisor
professor of zoology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I think that any. Cursory examination of the overwhelming amount of evidence that has been gathered together by a wide variety of academic and professional groups indicates that we are faced with a serious urgent problem as a result of overpopulation. I don't think there can be any question about this but that our. Current relationship with our environment is seriously endangered by this. This single most important problem facing the world today. This is the final program in our series about the problem of population growth. We're reviewing the problem and speculating on the world our children and grandchildren will face. We asked Dr. Philip pouncer professor of sociology and director of the Population Research Center at the
University of Chicago to assess the seriousness of the problem. A population. If you look at the world as a whole there's no doubt that we have faced with a very serious problem of excessive population growth for at least the remainder of this century. What is perhaps even more or more probably more of a problem is the fact that most of this increase by far is going to occur among lay populations in the developing regions of the world Asia and Latin America and Africa for example or the population in these areas now perhaps that 2.6 billions and I could rise to about 5.4 billion by the end of the century. And this means a population in the developing regions of the world alone will then crease by as many people in the next 30 years as the total population. This nation rather the total population of the world as recently as 1960. This is a particularly
difficult situation because the developing nations Iran attempting to achieve higher levels of living and it is perfectly clear that the rapid population growth rate which has a lot of Latin America ravaging 3 percent per year. This is a rate at which the population doubles every 23 years. Now excessive population growth rates of this type. I definitely a barrier to the sheave and higher levels of living on a part of the nations attempting economic development programs and in consequence even with the family planning problems under way which had been something less than successful. I say from the standpoint of the world picture between now and the end of the century more are not less social unrest greater not lesser political instabilities more are not fewer threats to world peace and consequences standpoint of the world outlook. I foresee despite the waste it represents increased not decreased expenditures for the military
and incidentally higher not lower taxes for our government for the people of the United States. The world seen there and for the world as a home I think its prospects pretty dismal at least for the rest of the century. The United States we are in a much better position as are most of the countries in the economically advanced areas. We have come a long way in controlling our runaway population growth for example in eighteen hundred. The average number of children brining in a completed family was about six in this country at the present time it's about 3 with present birth rate city jail where these rates to persist. The average number of children born now could come down to around two and a half children per completed family with our present death rates in this country. It takes only two point one one children per couple to produce a zero growth rate. Some people are worried about that quite won one and I'm
kind of meeting writing a manual on how you can get that fraction of a child. In any case looking at it from that standpoint when the U.S. may be no more than about a half a child a couple away from a zero growth rate. However having said that we are still faced with the prospect of a dramatic new huge population increase during the remainder of this century in the United States short of a catastrophic. And I might've said the same for the world picture sort of the catastrophic this is the type of thing like that happen in the U.S. between now and the end of the century a scant 30 years. We're almost certain at 100 million people. We are one in present census count is announced. It will be clear we are a nation of two hundred five million by the end of the century we are almost certain short of a catastrophic to be a nation in excess of 300 million. Now even though we are approaching the point where Zero Population Growth is not too far down the road of the fact is it is
too. We are still growing at a very rapid rate and the difference between a three child family and a two child family can produce these tremendous population increases. So what I see for the United States during the remainder of this century is the kind of growth that undoubtedly it will need Sasa bape many of our current problems physical problems in the cities including air and water pollution environmental pollution especially if we do nothing about. Creating agency is that will monitor and correct these things for us. We are likely to exacerbate many of the personal and social problems delinquency crime drug addiction or alcoholism. Exacerbate the revolution is now underway for the blacks. The emerging revolt of the women I think we're going to have a consumer and rapid population is going to help make these things I think more intense. We're going to exacerbate problems of government relations between the federal government and
problems of local government. We're going to exacerbate our economic problems climate unemployment poverty consumer exploitation of the night. So what I'm saying in effect is that these problems are caused by population per se but excessive growth makes it much more difficult to deal with these problems as we try to solve problems while making creating services for rapidly expanding people not apparent how serious quiet assessment contrasts with the colorful rhetoric of Dr. Paul Annick Stanford University professor of biology. But I want to emphasize we start to trust population trying to make fun of anything. Yes trying. Basically our populated states especially elated that we have had we saw some merit success first.
Right. It will level we can support that will not solve all of human problems. There will still be racism. There will still be war there will still be destruction of the environment unless we tackle them at the same time. All population control does is bite you were taken to try and solve our other incredibly difficult problems. If you don't have Population control of yours you might as well forget about all the others because then we won't even have a chance. Now I could go into a long discussion of what was the first things our population growth but I suspect most of you are already familiar with them. Let me point out just one number which came to my attention recently. In all the wars of the United States as far in the revolution 1812 Mexican civil Spanish-American. Oh yes. Well you wish.
However I really regard Dr. Erlik in his stand against further population growth thinking people share a common concern. Human population growth is governed by many of the same natural laws that govern the population growth of other mammals including the natural laws and enforce a limit on the size of a population where that limit is for man. We do not know a simple application of mathematics tells us that if our population keeps growing at its present rate the year 23 70 will find us with a human population density of 1 person per square foot. We have yet to find anyone who would relish the kind of life that would imply. It therefore becomes obvious that some sort of population growth Jacks will of necessity become a part of the lifestyles of future generations. How soon we will all employed birth control and how severely limits will be imposed will depend on many factors including population growth rates and the availability of
birth control assistance religious and governmental policies and changing cultures. To some extent American lifestyles are changing to a culture that believes that small families are the ideal and the children should be planned for and want it. Also women are increasingly seeking goals beyond the home. Dr. Silverman believes that this changing role of women is an important factor in controlling population growth. Now the role of women obviously is quite crucial. We can make available and although there's only a relatively small effort being put into the variety of contraceptive devices or educational methods for encouraging use of contraception. Legalize abortion and encourage sterilization. These kinds of methods can be made available to the population both for men and women to participate in. But there is an important attitude change which must also take place. You know our current society and I'm talking not only about the United States but
throughout the world. Quite clearly the role of the woman has been one of procreation. This has been strongly emphasized. And in this country one need only look at our. Primary school books in the way children are educated to realize buying. By many subtle and not so subtle ways that women are taught that their place is in the home that they are in they are in to play play with dolls and they're being taught that they are going to be mothers. Now it seems to me that it's a very important aspect of this whole problem that women for the sake of men as well who are liberated to the extent that they are much more self determinative. They they can develop and should develop satisfying careers and have many more opportunities available to them. In the professional ways. I think it's a shocking thing to realize that the
University of Illinois that the proportionate number of women on the faculty it is less today than it was 20 years ago. I think this says something about her attitude. The woman. Has got to got to come into society in a more meaningful way. And by doing that she will herself become aware of the function she can play and I think will voluntarily reduce the number of children which she bears. And I think that this is part and parcel of the problem and it calls for a change of values in our social society our social structure. And also you it requires changes both in. Terms of values and also in the kinds of priorities we give in in other ways as well. Whether or not for example it's more important to put 30 billion dollars into maintaining our. Prestige and
presence in Southeast Asia than it is to put even a proportional fraction of that. Amount of money into research and population and pollution work. And these are the kinds of values and priority systems that we're going to have to examine and seems to be very closely. If we ever hope to come and to balance with our environment. Dr. Paul Silverman. The trend of women seeking a place outside the home is not the only factor that will influence future lifestyles. The development of advanced medical techniques including such things as artificial insemination genetic engineering and transplants were influenced not only help but lifespans and therefore population levels as well. What influence would these things have on our children's families. We asked Dr. Michael spore Koski a family counselor and assistant professor of family relationships at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Artificial insemination is the first one I mention. I know this is already being done in some
cases and I know there are a lot of needy nasty legal problems that are coming up in regard to this. But what about. Let's say the wife does have artificial insemination. Not from the husband. What kind what can this do to a family. Well it certainly depends on how the family reacts to this if the husband knows and is in agreement with this and they have discussed it and usually a physician will not provide artificial insemination services without a full discussion with the couple. I think it doesn't have to make a difference if they are interested in having babies and this is their primary goal and if for some reason the husband wife team are not able to conceive and it is not the wife's fault or major in a major sense not the wife's fault in an artificial insemination can bring about a pregnancy I think this could be a positive for them. Now sometimes later on though again. The husband might react negatively. Well that really isn't my child why should I give it anything.
And it's much like an adoption kind of situation where sometimes the adopted child feels rejected later on initially perhaps not but later on he or she might. This isn't a one to one relationship it might happen it might not but that's one of the personal problems here. How does it make the male feel if you know he cannot impregnate his wife but someone else. Test tube wise can and this may have a very severe ego consequences and I think those have to be considered and we can't go into too much depth but that's an important factor. So back to fertilization deliberately attempting to influence characteristics of children. I know this isn't news. People have been talking about it for years. Why does have these changed families. What would be the reaction. Training hard to say selective fertilisation as you said your eugenics whatever you want to call it has been around in terms of animal husbandry as well as human desires and needs at different times. I think it would probably be something against
most of us initially Anyhow this would take the chance element out of it. In fact some people today. We know enough about conception that we can make a pretty good guess if conception takes place at a certain point and then I feel a Tory cycle versus another point is going to be a boy or a girl kind of thing. And I know many of the mothers of the kids I teach in class and I have the attitude that you know well it takes all the fun out of it it shouldn't be that planned it's too methodical and yet you know if you really let's say had two or three girls and you wanted a boy and couldn't afford to have more kids that was your value system. I think this has some merit and enhancing the chances of having a boy or a girl or you know whatever you choose here. I don't see this is bad no in terms of making everybody just like everybody else the 1984 Brave New World kind of concept where you have a working class and upper class of intelligentsia kind of things I react negatively but that's because of my background and my living in what I would consider a fairly democratic system. On the other hand it has possibilities I'm sure for
some people but the family well if you had six kids and they all looked alike. Might be pretty difficult I'm sure people who have twins going to appreciate it or triplets or quadruplets. I go out of my mind. Widespread use of transplants here I'd say. Perhaps you want to talk about human transplants and that artificial little plastic. Yeah I have mixed emotions about this I think the technology is marvelous and I think we've done some. Magnificent things but. Do we want people to live to 200 years of age. Can they functionally survive that long I suppose that enough transplants they might become immortal and I think this is a question that a lot of people raise when they say this is a negative thing. On the other hand I think especially for younger people who have been hurt accidentally or have conditions which they had no control over these transplants might be tremendous in terms of giving them a normal life time and I don't know what's normal is 70 normal hours 30 you know well there's 200
normal. And here's where the moralists and the values people can say more than I can but I think the potential is great but how we're going to use this and how we're going to fit it into the system. Right now I said we had this family in Florida that had six generations Well if you can live to 100 50 by the use of transplants you know we're going to really have a complex society in terms of kin and inheritance and custody and child support and things like this. If this nation and the world is going to reduce its population growth rate and eventually stabilize the population size was certainly going to have to do something about several aspects of our population problem. First of all to discourage large families. Secondly I suspect to reduce or eliminate the social stigmatism attached to those families are those couples who are NOT do not have children. And encourage people to increase their families if they're so inclined to do so and to do so by adoption as opposed to procreation. Could you
make some suggestions on how these goals might be accomplished. Yeah I think first of all that we don't have to discourage large families I don't think there are that many. I think if the family size could be decreased by one person for instance I would be a significant difference. There have been all sorts of ways proposed income tax breaks sometime trees have family allotments in terms of having children in order to have more population Well you know this could go the other way if you have too many children you might be penalized in a way. Social pressures and a lot of people sort of say well if you've got four kids what's wrong with you today. And I've seen many families that have run up against this and this isn't necessarily good or bad but two is the ideal number maybe three but the fourth one seems to be at least among some middle class groups sort of an exception and you know what are you immediate thing is are you Catholic and yet in sort of a personal isn't it I've done it myself. More than likely these are
Protestants and this is an interesting thing to Catholic families are immediately big Not necessarily at all the average Catholic family from the statistics I observe it is probably within a half a family member and sides on a statistical level. The others are not there Michael score Koski abortion birth control and other related matters are becoming political as well as personal and medical problems at the time this program was prepared. A bill was in Congress which SCHIP and acted would launch a five year one billion dollar population control program on a national level. On this program we not only provide services for the poor but provide funds for research and set up an office to coordinate all federal family planning services. It seems likely that this bill will face considerable opposition. What sort of population policy should this nation have a radical anti-NATO policy a policy of no control a policy of some control.
And this is a problem for all of us to ponder one moderate answer to these questions was given by Dr. Norman writer or stein Bablon professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. He favors what he terms a rational policy toward population. We ask him to explain his stand. I am not of the persuasion that we face such perils immediately that we should abandon our concerns for individual freedom and civil liberties. In fact I would put it another way around the kinds of policies that I would advocate. I think that I would want to advocate even if there were no such thing as a birth rate or a population size. I believe that people should have the maximum freedom to control the relevant. They're relevant to behavior particularly in ways that are so influential on the
course of their lives. I am therefore personally and this is not speaking from any kind of scientific point of view I am personally in favor of people having as easy and open access as they can to ways of controlling fertility and I would include their methods of contraception. I think of abortion and sterilization. I think that these are aspects of the the freedom of mankind that we ought to try to achieve. I'm also of the opinion that if our country our government were to help people in their attempts to control their lives rather than Hender them that the United States would not have a problem of population growth by any standards of measurement. DR NORMAN Ryder.
Again I'd much rather run off and not meet brought you to the doctor. And I guess for me I mean I did it. And I missed it I'm leaving. The Senate on the shelf the way I want to treat it. We are all involved with the problem of population for all of us are a part of the population the number of children we have and our attitude toward birth control governmental policies family planning and medical practice will help determine what life will be like for our grandchildren and none of the questions involved is easy to understand or answer. But even a phone fully or ignorantly we will make the family decisions that will help determine what life will be like for our children and grandchildren.
You have been listening to one plus one equals three four. Five a series of programs about the problems we face because of our growing population. Your host for this program has been Dennis Corrigan special music performed by Ria Truscott engineering by Edna Haney. One night beat like many many feet and never let. Me Down. One plus one equals three four five was produced and directed by Luis Geissler. It's been wy allows the radio service of the University of Illinois
Series
One plus one equals three
Episode Number
13
Episode
And For our Grandchildren
Contributing Organization
University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/500-cn6z1d7h
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/500-cn6z1d7h).
Description
Description
No description available
Date
1971-00-00
Topics
Social Issues
Media type
Sound
Duration
00:30:04
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
AAPB Contributor Holdings
University of Maryland
Identifier: 71-5-13 (National Association of Educational Broadcasters)
Format: 1/4 inch audio tape
Duration: 00:30:00?
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “One plus one equals three; 13; And For our Grandchildren,” 1971-00-00, University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed August 9, 2022, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-cn6z1d7h.
MLA: “One plus one equals three; 13; And For our Grandchildren.” 1971-00-00. University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. August 9, 2022. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-cn6z1d7h>.
APA: One plus one equals three; 13; And For our Grandchildren. Boston, MA: University of Maryland, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-500-cn6z1d7h