Good life: Comfortable living for smaller numbers
By Lena Zhang |
June 30, 2011, Thursday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
MR Cusack's article "Great debate: Good life means bread for all" in Shanghai Daily's June 23 issue has made some very valid points.
However, his affirmation of a Maryknoll missionary's statement about population control appears to be a little debatable.
I don't doubt that our planet will kick off its mechanisms for population control if the numbers stretch what our natural resources can provide for the basic survival needs. The animal kingdom has shown us those mechanisms at work many times.
But that doesn't mean that our ability to procreate should be left to its own devices until then because it's in our blood to want a better life than having just enough bread to keep our body and soul together, a life that allows us to live reasonably comfortably while still having a little bit to put aside for the rainy days. The need for a peace of mind comes very naturally to all of us.
I'm certainly not advocating that we should let our material desires run wild and attempt to scramble for endless surplus or luxury for oneself, which would invariably lead to scarcity for others.
Like the ancient teaching of Confucius, a good life is about striking a balance - striving for a better life for oneself while taking into consideration the needs and wants of others for a sustainable collective future.
This balance is to be achieved both horizontally (between oneself and others) as well as vertically (between generations). In many parts of the world today, the population is still growing at a speed faster than the resources' exploration can catch up to absorb, which calls inevitably for some measures of birth control.
In China, even though the family planning policy has been in place for more than two decades, the nation is still struggling to maintain a reasonable living standard for all its people, despite the explosive rise of its GDP in many consecutive years.
There has been an adjustment to the policy a while ago, however, (and) I welcome the government's recent decision to turn down a proposal to further relax it.
Although the policy might have appeared inhuman to people of countries without population issues, beneath the surface it's an indispensable part in the nation's progression towards "better life for all."
This generation of Chinese of child-bearing age, together with their parents', are in a sense paying back the population debt of their grandparents' generation.
To my delight many younger Chinese, including those in rural areas, have realized the individual benefits of having fewer children to rear - better education for the children and less financial burden on the family, as well as the collective benefits - more resources to share.
The logic behind Catholic churches' opposition to birth control is certainly not new to most - a child is a gift from God and should therefore be brought to the world no matter what. If that were the case He might have taken a nap during industrialization and appears to be a bit slow in taking a grasp of the rapid social and economical developments of our society since.
In the old days when higher infant mortality and shorter life expectancy prevailed, children were indeed like very precious "gifts" for families, but nowadays that may no longer hold true on our rather overcrowded planet. I imagine that He would be even less inclined to see His people suffer from war, pandemic, and other trials of life as a consequence of there being too many.
Yes, we should challenge the reality of disproportionate resources being controlled by only a few. But a human society by definition won't be a perfect machine for equality.
The gap between the rich and the poor is the result of many background issues at work, including the exponential growth of our population in the last century which is still carrying some of its momentum into the new millennium.
Therefore, only if we tackle all major sources to our woes can we expect to find some ways to alleviate them.
So, "barely enough bread for too many" or "comfortable living for the majority of fewer," which one would you rather choose?
(The author is a reader of Shanghai Daily.)
However, his affirmation of a Maryknoll missionary's statement about population control appears to be a little debatable.
I don't doubt that our planet will kick off its mechanisms for population control if the numbers stretch what our natural resources can provide for the basic survival needs. The animal kingdom has shown us those mechanisms at work many times.
But that doesn't mean that our ability to procreate should be left to its own devices until then because it's in our blood to want a better life than having just enough bread to keep our body and soul together, a life that allows us to live reasonably comfortably while still having a little bit to put aside for the rainy days. The need for a peace of mind comes very naturally to all of us.
I'm certainly not advocating that we should let our material desires run wild and attempt to scramble for endless surplus or luxury for oneself, which would invariably lead to scarcity for others.
Like the ancient teaching of Confucius, a good life is about striking a balance - striving for a better life for oneself while taking into consideration the needs and wants of others for a sustainable collective future.
This balance is to be achieved both horizontally (between oneself and others) as well as vertically (between generations). In many parts of the world today, the population is still growing at a speed faster than the resources' exploration can catch up to absorb, which calls inevitably for some measures of birth control.
In China, even though the family planning policy has been in place for more than two decades, the nation is still struggling to maintain a reasonable living standard for all its people, despite the explosive rise of its GDP in many consecutive years.
There has been an adjustment to the policy a while ago, however, (and) I welcome the government's recent decision to turn down a proposal to further relax it.
Although the policy might have appeared inhuman to people of countries without population issues, beneath the surface it's an indispensable part in the nation's progression towards "better life for all."
This generation of Chinese of child-bearing age, together with their parents', are in a sense paying back the population debt of their grandparents' generation.
To my delight many younger Chinese, including those in rural areas, have realized the individual benefits of having fewer children to rear - better education for the children and less financial burden on the family, as well as the collective benefits - more resources to share.
The logic behind Catholic churches' opposition to birth control is certainly not new to most - a child is a gift from God and should therefore be brought to the world no matter what. If that were the case He might have taken a nap during industrialization and appears to be a bit slow in taking a grasp of the rapid social and economical developments of our society since.
In the old days when higher infant mortality and shorter life expectancy prevailed, children were indeed like very precious "gifts" for families, but nowadays that may no longer hold true on our rather overcrowded planet. I imagine that He would be even less inclined to see His people suffer from war, pandemic, and other trials of life as a consequence of there being too many.
Yes, we should challenge the reality of disproportionate resources being controlled by only a few. But a human society by definition won't be a perfect machine for equality.
The gap between the rich and the poor is the result of many background issues at work, including the exponential growth of our population in the last century which is still carrying some of its momentum into the new millennium.
Therefore, only if we tackle all major sources to our woes can we expect to find some ways to alleviate them.
So, "barely enough bread for too many" or "comfortable living for the majority of fewer," which one would you rather choose?
(The author is a reader of Shanghai Daily.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
