The global population reached six billion on October 12, 1999. For far too many people, this is an interesting statistic, for some it is even a cause for pride or celebration. However there are serious questions to be raised about the standard of living for those six billion and the stability of the environment under such strains. According to the United Nations that number can be expected to swell to seven billion within the next fourteen years. In a finite ecosystem, an ever-increasing population is of critical concern. There is a limit to how many human beings the Earth can sustain. This number is almost completely determined by the lifestyles of those people, but even under the best of circumstances there is an upward limit. This simple fact makes the problem inescapable; however it is handled, this issue cannot be ignored and must eventually be dealt with in a proactive manner. Turning again to the United Nations, hopeful for a simple numerical answer to this conundrum, they claimed at the conference held in Cairo in 1994 that they desired to stabilize world population at 7.2 billion. This may seem to give humanity some breathing space, but one must not forget to consider the standard of living of these individuals. If the entire planet lived at the levels found common to the western world, the environment would not survive; many demographers consider the world to already be beyond capacity simply due to depletion of nonrenewable resources and environmental degradation. Regardless of who is seen as correct, a balance must be found between population, food supply, and the environment, whatever those levels need to be, and soon, as almost all experts in the field agree that time is of the essence.

Perhaps the two most important components to consider when trying to get an idea of how many people the Earth can support are the environment and food supply. There are also further concerns, such as those illustrated by China's example, but these two are generally considered the most vital. First it is important to put things in perspective; Population growth rates, the rate at which population grows, not the actual growth itself, are lower now than any other time since World War II. Currently there is enough food in the world to feed its entire population, but due to the hoarding inherent in the global capitalist system, or anarchy depending on ones views, this food does not find its way into starving mouths. The problem would only get worse as the worldwide population rises, and there are other threats to the current food supply. Deforestation, desertification, and an ever-decreasing bio-diversity are just three environmental consequences of human expansion and habitation. These problems and those like it are growing globally on a daily basis. When the environment fails, the food supply drops, and when that happens humanity faces a most dreadful form of population control.

Whenever overpopulation is discussed, one's mind invariably turns to thoughts of China's One Child Policy and indeed, it may serve as a useful example in possible population control policy prescriptions. Twenty years ago China, looking at it's growing population versus its environment set forth its infamous One Child Policy. The goals of the policy were simple: through rewards, incentives, fines, and punishment, limit China's population to 1.2 billion by the year 2000. Fees were imposed on services for non-firstborn children, multiple-child parents were stigmatized at work, women were forced or coerced into having abortions, massive ad campaigns were launched, there were tax benefits for those that complied, and baby police looking for those who did not. To a certain extent, this policy did much of what it set out to do; in the 1970s alone the average number of children per woman in China dropped from 6 to 2.5. However the final goal has already been abandoned, as China's population currently sits at 1.23 billion. The policy has been criticized as taking away the rights of the individual in favor of fear and governmental regulation and control; it would be difficult to argue the point. There has also been a major side effect that most people did not expect. Due to the One Child Policy, China now has a shrinking population of working aged adults. Pit this fact versus an increasingly large demographic of seniors and a crisis is born. This is the first generation of China's controlled population and they have to bare the burden of those that created their current woes. The older generation that was of working age when the policy was first implemented is also feeling the strain. The quality of care for the elderly has dropped sharply, and for many painfully, as a result of this attempt at population control. This illustrates how careful one must be in any policy prescriptions on this matter. The implications and affects are almost limitless, but this also holds true if one does nothing.

Enforcing any kind of population policy may seem impossibly problematic, but there are signs of hope. India's policies, based on birth control, making the information and means available, have had relative success. India is the second most populous country in the world and during the 1970s its baby-to-woman ration dropped from 6 to 4.7 and India is not facing anything like the difficulties China finds itself in today. Indeed one may argue they face a completely different set of problems, but that is a discussion best left for another time. The World Health Organization, with its programs spreading knowledge of gender equality, contraceptives, and other family planning tools has also seen a relative level of success in areas that were open to their ideas and assistance. There are many factors that encourage pronatalist, or large family thinking. Sexism, a lack of status for women, the belief that they are only for child birth and rearing, husbands not allowing their wives to use contraceptives thinking that children are evidence of one's manliness are among many views that promote large families. It has been proven through example that the empowerment of women, education and availability of contraceptives, and relative economic development limits family size. When women are not at the mercy of their husbands, when families no longer need as many able-bodied hands to work on farms, when family planning is widely available and acceptable, only then will population bring itself back under control. It is not always as simple and clear cut as it may sound, but it is by far a better alternative. Obviously many will be resistant to these new ideas. When the World Health Organization would go into villages they would not always be welcome, and they respected the will of the village leaders. However some of the gender-related issues would qualify as human rights violations. Putting young children to work at a young age would qualify as child or slave labor, depending on the details. Women forced to have children against their will would no doubt be viewed negatively by the international community. Hopefully few would argue with providing option free education and family planning services. Another important part of this is seeing to the economic situations in which these large families occur. Some would claim relieving third world debt would help the local economies, and as a result parents might feel less inclined to have children simply to help support them. These may not be the simplest of things to implement, but the consequences of not taking action are severe. China has shown the negative affects of a rapid, imposed demographic shift and those mistakes shall hopefully not be repeated.

Any steps taken towards the goal of keeping global population at levels the Earth can maintain must be taken carefully. Pro-lifers would react poorly to abortion just as traditionalists will most likely reject new ideas, but the effort must be made. When forming population policies and even discussing potentials, one must be ever mindful of the language involved. Consider the better reception 'family planning' would have over 'birth control' or 'contraceptives' as it puts emphasis on the more positive aspects of family and organizing, while the other terms may bring to mind thoughts of power control or the prevention or even destruction of life. One must also not fall into the trap of believing that some technological breakthrough will save the planet. This has nothing to do with the feasibility of such a hope, it is just that the stakes are 6 billion lives, a number rising everyday, and countless other life-forms, a number decreasing everyday. To risk staying on the sidelines is to risk, as Dr. Virginia Abernethy puts it, "Global Folly". There is just one environment, only one Earth, and anything on this scale of impact would be felt by all, regardless of borders or economics. There has been a general awareness of a population problem since the mid-1960s and it's time to start doing something definitive about it; it may be our last chance. Mankind has long since if not replaced nature, than certain joined it as a strong competitor as the primary constructive and destructive force, and its affects must be reigned in much more responsibly than they have been. The benefits of such a program of knowledge and the freedom of choice will transcend that of population to other important areas such as a reduction in violence towards women, as they would become more empowered. When one considers the global problems of environmental degradation and food supply, the need for such a process becomes clear.