The Moral Imperative of Helping Countries Affected by Overpopulation

Introduction

Long before humans ever arrived on Earth, the planet was bright and green with so much more to give; however, as humans began to populate the planet, nature’s beauty began to diminish leaving us with a view of many buildings instead of wonderful green landscapes. With an increase in births through the years, the planet won’t be able to adapt with overpopulation. The article, “The Island of Plenty”, published by Newsweek in 1974, gives an insight on Johnson C. Montgomery’s perspective about overpopulation. Montgomery believes the United States should remain an “island of plenty in a sea of hunger”(Montgomery). He doesn’t want the United States to be responsible for the rest of humanity and doesn’t want to help out other countries such as: South Asia, India, and Africa. I disagree with his perspective as a solution to the issue of overpopulation because only having nourished, educated, and loved children to be the future of mankind, the idea that resources exist to nourish man and all other creatures indefinitely into the future, and for the United States of America to not contribute to helping the rest of the humanity who are suffering due to the act of overpopulation is an inconsiderate way to a solution. Overpopulation is a global issue that has an effect to all, to not take action upon this issue to aid other countries is a selfish act coming from the United States, due to the fact that it has the immense capability to make a difference.  Overpopulation does cause bad effects on all; however, there is always a rational solution for every problem. My proposition to the solution of the issue of overpopulation is in fact to aid other countries who are being affected by this problem, as it can benefit us in the future to be more efficient and to not undertake the same actions that led us to this issue that we are trying to resolve today.

Should America help the world?

Author, Johnson C. Montgomery, claims that “if we try to save the starving millions today, we will simply destroy what’s left of Eden”(Montgomery). Montgomery implies that by aiding other countries who are suffering from the effects of overpopulation, like the lack of resources, will indeed destroy Eden, which means paradise. This reveals the view of Montgomery toward aiding other countries who are suffering as a way of destroying our planet. However, helping other countries who are suffering from the effects of overpopulation can support the world as a whole, leading us to a more efficient future. According to The World Bank, they have given support to help countries manage landscapes to increase productivity; for example, help was given to “farms, forests, watersheds, and coastal fisheries” (The World Bank). Maneuvering agriculture has had a positive effect on countries who have been suffering on the lack of resources (add example about how it was positive) This exhibits that aiding other countries can aim the world to produce more food on less land, improve climate resilience and reduce negative environmental impact. Adding the countries who are being affected by overpopulation which leads to hunger, poverty and malnutrition can be beneficial to The United States of America's security and prosperity due to the effects that may lead. This is further supported in this statement: “History has shown that poverty and hunger push people into despair and, in turn, exacerbate many of today’s national security challenges” (USAID, pg1). USAID is the United States Agency for International Development that primarily is responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance. 

Montgomery gives his input on the consequence that would happen in his perspective if we do aid the countries who are being affected by overpopulation. He asks his audience if the United States should send ”food, knowing that each child saved in Southeast Asia, India or Africa will probably live to reproduce and thereby bring more people into the world to live even more miserably?’(Montgomery). Montgomery's statement implies that the affected countries, Southeast Asia, India or Africa, would repeat the action that we are trying to solve today. If we were to pay the countries, they would contribute to the issue of making the future “more miserable”. His claim is incorrect because the reason countries being affected produce more children is due to the lack of resources they inquire; helping those countries would benefit the stop of overpopulation. Children in Southeast Asia, India, and Africa are seen as a beneficial aspect to their families economically due to the immense poverty. In the article “Child Labor in Developing Countries,” Christopher Muscato states: “Many families have come to rely on the income earned by their children. For these families, sending children to work may be a matter of survival.” (Muscato, pg1). If we aid the families in countries that are contributing to the expansion of population, it would benefit the issue affecting the world as a whole by sharing the wealth we inquire about. Another claim by Montgomery is the idea that the countries that we aid would continuously have children, but as the United States we are fortunate to have the opportunities to have contraceptives which help our country control our population. As Montgomery states the United States has worked one’s way to lower birth rates, and “the nations having the greatest needs are those that have been the least responsible in cutting down on births. Famine is one of nature’s ways of telling profligate people that they have been irresponsible in their breeding habits” (Montgomery). But the countries that have famine don't have the same access as the United States to contraceptives. For instance, the article “In Developing Nations, 214 Million Women Want to Prevent Pregnancy but Have No Contraception” by Christina Cauterucci supports the claim by stating: “These women, the majority of whom live in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, account for 84 percent of all unintended pregnancies in developing countries. If they had access to contraception, Guttmacher estimates, unintended pregnancies in these regions would shrink from 89 million to 22 million per year, and induced abortions would drop from 48 million to 13 million per year.” (Cauterucci, pg1). This explains how birth rates and the population would minimize tremendously if the countries had the same benefits that the United States inquire to control the growth of our population. 

The point of view of Montgomery towards who would lead the world into the right direction is for the future to have only “nourished, educated and loved children [...] not with the starving, uneducated and ignored” (Montgomery). This explains the perspective that Montgomery sees countries who are developing and that are being affected by the issue of overpopulation, as not all countries have the same advantage and exposure to the same education The United States achieve. This is further explained in the article “UNESCO: 264 million children don't go to school” by Carla Bleiker, which she states “Poverty is the #1 enemy of education on every level,” students that are in financially unstable families, are more at risk to come by health risks and inferior lifestyles (Bleiker, pg1). This demonstrates that developing countries who are indeed struggling with famine and poverty don't get the same education for their children compared to others, including their environment, which is poverty, interferes for their opportunity to learn due to the necessity of money. Further along in the article, it explains that “in 45 percent of countries, access to education is not even enshrined in the official legal code or constitution” (Bleiker, pg1). These infarcts statically show that the kids in countries who are struggling in poverty don't in fact get the opportunities needed to succeed, when they seek for the opportunity they are not accepted shown by the immense amount that are denied, as their own government does not support the road of education to lead the kids to a better future. This explains that the kids in these countries are not taking the choice to not be educated, malnourished, and or ignored is what they were born in and without the help of other countries it continues this direction. If the United States would offer help to these countries, they would help us as a country as well. In the article “The Benefits of Higher Education,” Jackallenye Huda explains “George Schultz and Eric Hanushek write in the Wall Street Journal that education has tremendous economic ramifications. The more educated the citizens of a country are, the more likely their personal and societal economies are to develop and succeed” (Huda, pg1). Societal economies is the analysis of the society's progress or return to a former or less developed state due to their local or regional economy or the global economy, which explains if we educate the countries who are struggling by the issue of overpopulation by providing the country as a whole with the same education The United States acquire would lead them to be more of a developed country which would be a positive impact to the end of the continuously increasing in birth rates. When the affected countries develop it would be another region that can attribute to resources for the world to acquire and lead future generations with education, so the problem of overpopulation won't repeat in the future. Further along in the article “The Benefits of Higher Education,” Jackallenye Huda states “According to economists at Harvard University, the 60% to 70% rise in wage inequality is based on the degree of education for high school and college graduates ... Schultz and Hanushek explain that the more educated the citizens of a country are the more the country experiences economic growth. Both on personal and national levels, education has been shown to increase economic growth and stability” (Huda, pg2). By educating people it gives opportunities to have a higher quality of job, which would help the poverty in countries decrease which also has a relationship to the increasing rate of birth rates since children are born more in countries who have more poverty due to the necessity of money, as children are seen as economically beneficial. But when they acquire a greater job to support their families economically it would end the increasing number of children being born, including have an input to the future by having enough money to support the education of children which will lead to a knowledgeable future for the world.

Sharing our wealth with other countries that need aid is an issue seen throughout Montgomery’s article, as how we see Montgomery believes The United States should continue to be a country with wealth and not divide any of this wealth to aid other countries in need. This is seen in Montgomery's statement “But we can’t be of any use in the long run—particularly if we weaken ourselves. Until we have at least a couple of year’s supply of food and other resources on hand to take care of our own people and until those asking for handouts are doing at least as well as we are at reducing existing excessive population-growth rates, we should not give away our resources—not so much as one bushel of wheat”(Montgomery) This explains that Montgomery believes we would affect our country if we aid others who are being affected when we do aid them in his perspective it ends up weakening ourselves which reflect on his solution which is equipping the wealth we have for ourselves before we help other countries who in his opinion are just adding to the issue.  But actually, not sharing our wealth can create more issues for our country, in fact sharing our wealth does not cost that much and can actually benefit us in the future. Supporting my claim, in the article “What's the real value of US foreign aid?” by Mina Chang states “So at a cost of less than 1% of our entire federal budget, foreign aid is a bargain, given its ability to bolster our national security”(Chang, pg1), this explains that it cost The United States one percent of the entire federal budget which consist the spending and revenues of the U.S. federal government, with one percent it can benefit The United States by providing security by creating alliances. In the article Mina Chang explains “Extreme poverty in regions across the world may not seem relevant, given the challenges we face domestically, but those areas of vulnerability give terrorists potential ways to disrupt our national security and way of life” ( Chang, pg1). This explains if we leave countries in poverty when we have the power to aid them would create more opportunities for terrorism due to the fact of necessities those countries need which would create a dangerous country for The United States.

Conclusion

In conclusion, overpopulation is a global issue that affects everyone, and it is important to find a rational solution to the problem. Although Johnson C. Montgomery suggests that the United States should not aid other countries who are suffering from the effects of overpopulation, I disagree with his perspective. Helping those countries can benefit the world as a whole and lead to a more efficient future. The United States, as a country with the capability to make a difference, has a responsibility to contribute to finding a solution to this problem. The aid that the United States provides to these countries can help in creating productive landscapes and maneuvering agriculture. Furthermore, aiding these countries can benefit The United States of America's security and prosperity. Montgomery's claim that helping these countries will lead to the destruction of the world is incorrect. The solution to overpopulation is to provide resources to countries that have a shortage of them. Additionally, children in Southeast Asia, India, and Africa are seen as a beneficial aspect to their families economically due to poverty, and it is important to help those families so that they can become self-sufficient. Lastly, the United States has access to contraceptives, which other countries may not have. Therefore, it is essential for the United States to take action and help those who are affected by overpopulation to benefit the world as a whole.