A new feature-length article in two local publications investigates why the younger generations are having fewer children. Even in large-family Utah, it notes, the birthrate in recent years has been dropping. It bemoans this fact and offers speculative reasons for it as well as some supposed “solutions” such as tighter-knit communities based on a common religion.
Nowhere in the article is there any mention of any downside to increased population growth. In particular, there is no mention of modern-day climate change, driven almost entirely by nonstop human population growth, especially in lesser-developed countries, and its consumerist demands.
Such omissions are a staple of propaganda, which serves the interests of some at the expense of others. In this case, it begs the questions, “Who benefits from a higher national (or local) birth-rate?” and “Who gets hurt?”
One obvious beneficiary would be our dominant economic system, capitalism. It would benefit by having a larger low-paid workforce, more consumers, perhaps more technological innovation, thus more profits for investors. Conversely, the obvious victims would be all those forced to endure hotter and hotter temperatures and increasingly toxic air — i.e., virtually the world’s entire human population — especially those forced to migrate elsewhere just to survive.
An informative, balanced article would consider and weigh both of these considerations. This article, written by a staff member of the business-oriented American Heritage Institute, didn’t — and is thus propagandistic.
I salute The Tribune for not printing it.
Tom Huckin, Salt Lake City