Sustainable Development and the Right to Family Planning: The Moral Dilemma, Faith, and the Future of Overpopulation
Many people feel that the ideas associated with Sustainable Development are political in nature; in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. As it turns out, the concepts involved actually trace back to observation of ecological and natural life processes. Unfortunately, in our sound-bite media culture, Sustainable Development has acquired a poor image, ironically enough, often associated with extreme politics of all stripes.
The issue is, looking at how humans interact with one another, their environment, and their shared finite resources, drastic measures must be called for. Rather than suggesting that this underlies strong political motive audiences should be mindful that human practices are drastically out of line with a continued state of increasing prosperity and quality of life for most people on Earth.
Sustainable Development requires a frank analysis of human behavior, whether it involves commerce, or other areas of human life. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, Sweden. The purpose of this conference was to develop a consensus among participants, to define the rights of humans to live, work, and play, in a healthy, productive environment.
Later followed more conferences, and the specifics that we have come to accept as basic rights emerged: the right to available food, structurally-sound housing options, clean, potable water, and a means of family planning. The aim was to harmonize humanity’s functioning within existing finite natural systems.
Click here to link to the United Nations Rio +20 Page on the History of Sustainable Development
Here is where some say that politics, religion, and basic morality all cross trajectories, and quite rightly. Defining a “means” of family planning placed the very concept of Sustainable Development squarely within the crosshairs of conservatives. Certain methods of Family Planning, i.e., those that are more than merely planning and abstaining alone, are actually forbidden in some faiths, most thoroughly so in the Christian religion known as Roman Catholicism, comprised of 1.8 billion adherents. With such a large number of members, this perspective cannot be ignored. Even if it were a faith consisting of only a million, its moral teachings on the matter should be addressed. In any free country, this is how a truly evolved discourse should unfold.
Why, one may ask, are purely religious considerations of any importance in a strictly secular society? Religious teachings are rooted, quite often, in morality, and an intrinsic value for life. TO assume that religious thought can in no way offer any elucidation to secular reasoning is ludicrous. Most of our society’s institutions are based on formerly religious establishments that preceded them. This is true of universities, hospitals, and a lot of what we have come to accept as distinctly Western aspects of society.
Somewhat reliable means of birth control may be obtained using highly precise thermometers, and choosing to abstain during those times, and such methods are approved by the Catholic Church. But many scholars and researchers believe that this is not nearly enough, and that humanity’s fate is strongly tied to whether we can survive a continued boom in population growth. Many believe that leaving such a choice in the hands of people in the throes of passion is unwise and futile.
Overpopulation is merely one way in which humanity can decimate our shared environment and render the planet unlivable. It is a very real danger, and the means that may be chosen to deal with it range from social change, to abstinence planning, to surgical (abortion or sterilization) or chemical means (abortion or sterilization) of family planning.
Of all the various ways in which Sustainability Planners aim to curb unrestricted growth, chemical means are most reliable and least intrusive, but are most apt to bring to the fore moral dilemmas and considerations ranging far beyond the initial problem-solution complex, in fact garnering attention far beyond the realm of strictly religious Catholic thought, extending even into the discussion of secular-humanist mentation. The methods of Abstinence planning that the Church does approve of, however, rely on strict compliance. This ultimately takes the control from the Planners, is not as reliable as other alternatives of reducing population growth, and is thus looked upon as a less-than-equivalent option.
For moralists, this presents an ongoing quandary. Ethical dilemmas created by curbing population growth are myriad. As the issue involves faith and religion, there will never be a resolution based strictly on science; faith is informed by ADDITIONAL sets of data. The morality of faith may be based in part on emotion, conscience, or even a distinctly different approach to life itself, derived from religious doctrine that, while not scientific in nature, presents fullness to the human experience that scientific fact alone does not approach.
But issues created by overpopulation include disease, starvation, squalor, and even death for the masses, revolution, and social instability at the extreme end. With such chaotic and tumultuous potential goings on, all of the other basic rights of humanity are effectively squashed, and pretty quickly, if overpopulation is not dealt with in SOME manner.
So, something must be done. But what? Under our current way of life, we do not recycle the water an individual uses. We do not have ecologically-sound systems in place to produce home heating OR electricity. Each of us uses and takes, and gives back very little. In our future, the world may be able to comfortably support vastly greater numbers of people, as sustainable systems develop that reduce each individual’s ecological footprint. But for now, as we currently live our lives, our world is straining under ever increasing pressures. But what of a solution? This essay is merely for the purpose of stimulating thought and discussion, not for providing easy answers.
Through discourse and scholarly objectivity, a greater understanding of this complex issue may be possible. Decisions regarding Sustainable Development, especially as pertains to the declared right to Family Planning resources, may have religious or social implications and after-effects, however none are inherently religious or political choices, and anyone purporting such, as either a barb or a defense, is quite wrong, in terms of history and fact.
Religious thought must play a role in any approach to finding solutions to ongoing planetary issues, not as an overbearing, dictating force directing public secular policy, but rather as a silent moral compass guiding individuals as they approach these issues, as well as providing a scholarly contrast in basic philosophy, a non-relativistic approach to life, where life itself is of the highest value. Such thinking may, at times, differ sharply from science-based, goal-oriented thinking which seeks systems efficiency without regard to method.
(C) Copyright 2014 BCSDPortugal.Com, All Rights Reserved