A) It is highly necessary that the human population be controlled. If humans cannot control their population, there are many unpleasant consequences that will occur. Firstly, the issue of starvation and famine will only get worse. Already, there are millions of people starving around the world. With every new baby comes another mouth to feed, and a more thin spread of food. Especially in the developing world, the search for food will lead to further degradation of the earth's resources and more problems with the environment. This leads to another problem, which would be pollution. As more people populate the earth, more and more cities would have to crop up; cites are hot spots of pollution. With all of the people in those areas needing fossil fuels to reach their workplaces, regulate their homes' temperatures, and live their daily lives, the air quality would significantly decrease, making the earth a toxic place for both humans and their fellow creatures to live. The output of pollution and greenhouse gasses would lead to worsening global warming. Global warming contributes to the rise of sea level, which contributes to another problem: overcrowding. Not only will less and less land space be available for people to live on because of rising oceans, but more and more people will be competing for it. There will simply not be enough space for humans to live on, let alone for wildlife to wander freely. Overcrowding lends itself to the next disaster that will befall humanity should it not control its population. Disease will become much more rampant as people live in closer conditions, as they seek whatever sad nutrition they can get, and as they become even more desperate for any water, contaminated or not. Should humans fail to control the growth of their population, nature will inevitably do it for them, in a manner far less pleasant than voluntary shrinking; it will control the population through mass starvation, plague, and natural disasters.
B) One major issue impeding the progress of human population control is the moral issue of family planning. Religion plays a tremendous role in the lives of humans, and by following their religions devoutly, population control has become a problem. Catholicism is one of the major roadblocks, as even the use of contraceptives is forbidden. Preventing any possible life is considered a sin, and so families of this religion have significantly limited family planning options; they can not have sex, or they can have more babies than desired. Even if the woman unwillingly become pregnant, abortions are not permitted as all life is considered sacred. Fundamentalist Protestants are another large roadblock; abortion is considered murder by them, one of the worst sins. Muslim fundamentalists also create issues in the family planning topic, as they believe that a large family is a blessed family. Therefore, the idea is to have as many children as possible, which is exactly what a population control advocate would object to. There are religions, however, that take a middle ground, allowing for some leeway for family planning. Both Hinduism and Judaism hold the belief that abortion can be okay and even necessary in certain circumstances. Buddhism does not stand in the way quite as much, as it is one of few religions that does not perpetuate the idea that more children is a good thing, but that children come naturally and are not to be pushed for.
C)There are many ways, large and small, that population control can become quite feasible. Increasing access to free birth control is essential. In addition to this, it is necessary to provide better sex education to kids before puberty. Improving the education of women so that they can make their own decisions, and not feel obligated to have babies is another idea. In the same vein, supporting teen mothers to a greater extent would also be helpful; as they could continue their lives and get education instead of just having many more babies. Also, canceling shows on television about families that have dozens of kids would eliminate any incentive to have vast quantities of children for fame. Changing religious views is also necessary, although that would be a very difficult thing to do. Instead of condemning them, encouraging homosexual relationships would reduce the number of births, as no gay people would be having new babies because they feel it would make them "normal." Financial incentives are another way to curb the growth of the population. Money could be given to a woman to stop having babies after her second baby, and an even greater quantity if she agrees to stop after her first. Or, college tuition could be paid for the first born of a woman, making it more economical to only have one child. Also, programs that give money or safety to people in third-world countries would greatly reduce growth in those regions, as it would not be necessary to have many children so that a few could grow up to support the parents.
D)The most effective way to reduce population control would be through a number of small policies, rather than one big policy that simply prohibits having many kids. One of the most important steps in reducing the population is to provide financial incentives to mothers for agreeing to have no more kids. After one child, a woman should be paid to have a tubal ligation ($5,000-$10,000), and after a second child, if she agrees, she should be paid slightly less ($3,000-$6,000). The suggested sums of money would be enough to make the operation seem desirable, but not put families with more children at a significant economical disadvantage. Men should also be paid to have a vasectomy, provided they have not fathered more than two children in the past ($1,000-$4,000). In addition to this, free birth control needs to be more available, especially in poor areas. Even if this would not be possible for everyone, people under a certain household income ($20,000-$30,000) should get some sort of waiver allowing for at least free condoms at all appropriate stores, if not all types of birth control. In addition to solutions in the area of finances, sex education needs to change. Students should be told about birth control methods before they hit puberty, rather than hearing about them briefly in high school when many teenagers have already started having sex. This would reduce the amount of teen pregnancies. However, programs supporting and educating teen mothers need to be expanded and instituted so that they realize that having more babies is not the only option for them in life, but that they can become professionals and continue to receive education. All of these would be ways to curb population growth in the USA and in developed countries, but action must also occur in the third-world and developing countries. Programs to ensure that those people can get better food and water, and obtain jobs to support themselves, would all dramatically decrease birth rates. Better food and water would mean that more children will survive, meaning that less children will have to be birthed. If people can economically support themselves to a greater extent, then they will not have to rely on their children to bring in money quite as much.