Changing the Rules

 

Saplings spring up

     and old weathered oaks finally crumble

and die-rotten wood

crumbles at the slightest touch.

 

          Headaches run in my family, inherited from our maternal grandmother. The women get severe migraines while the men get milder forms. Due to this genetic propensity for headaches, I've always been hypersensitive to polluted air; cigarette smoke is the worst. Throughout most of my childhood and adulthood, 15 minutes in a smoky room was enough to leave me with a severe and lasting headache. Although restaurants, airplanes and other public places had separate smoking and non-smoking sections, the escape smoke from the smoking section was enough to bring on the headache. Consequently, I avoided public places and dreaded flying.

         In the old days, we non-smokers were at the mercy of the smokers. They had the right to smoke almost anywhere. I would have to approach a smoker I couldn't escape and say, politely and timidly, "Pardon me, but I'm severely allergic to cigarette smoke. I wonder if you would mind not smoking?" Some would stop out of consideration, but many would ignore me or even express anger with my impudence and continue right on smoking. Their attitude was that if I didn't like it, I could leave or choose another means of transportation. Restricting their right to smoke was limiting their freedom. In essence, I was at the mercy of each and every smoker; after all, they had the right!

         Extensive research, education, propaganda, and the resultant public awareness of the health consequences of cigarette smoke have happily changed this situation in spite of a strong lobby and reams of fallacious research produced by the cigarette industry. Now I can fly anywhere in the U.S. in a smoke-free environment, and I can enjoy frequenting restaurants and other public places in California without the expectation of getting the dreaded headache. I don't need to timidly ask people to stop smoking. Now the non-smoker has the right! Believe me, my life, and certainly those of millions of other non-smokers have been substantially improved, all because the rules have changed.

         The rules, both the printed and the unprinted rules, are always changing. The progression of events taken to abridge the rights of smokers seems to be the normal channel in a democratic society. First, the scientific data must be available to spell out the basis for warranting a change. Second, this information must be disseminated to the general public through education and propaganda, and finally, the written laws and unwritten moral codes must respond. Each of these three steps requires tremendous effort and the expenditure of large sums of money. Carefully controlled scientific experimentation, conducted by knowledgeable and unbiased scientists, rather than by people paid to get a certain result, is almost always funded by governmental agencies and to a much lesser extent, by charitable organizations. Conducting research is a slow, laborious process that requires years of work.

         Once reliable data are available, the newly won information must be brought to the attention of the public. The research results can be introduced into school curricula, particularly in high school and college programs where the material must be integrated into exciting courses, or under rare circumstances, be offered within new courses specifically devoted to the topic. In this capacity, teachers and administrators must take a lead in recognizing a need for changing or expanding class materials. When it's realized that less than 10% of Americans and less than 1% of the world population has college degrees, it's easy to see that this approach can serve only as a beginning.

         Publicizing the results and convincing the public that there is a need for a change is complicated. In the case of the "right to smoke," evidence for major health hazards became overwhelming, and there were no socio-religious groups that opposed restricting smoking in public places. In fact, several religious and social groups had been advocating non-smoking policies even before the scientific evidence was at hand. This, of course, greatly facilitated the dissemination of the new information as these dedicated groups were already in existence and had a vested interest in arguing their longstanding point of view.

         In the case of environmental issues and human population control, the essential scientific evidence is already available and compelling. Global warming, species extinction, environmental pollution, depletion of resources all represent the direct consequences of an excessive human population. Although several environmentally aware and active groups such as the Sierra Club are in existence, few religious groups currently advocate population control or restricting pollution. In fact, some religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, strongly oppose any form of birth control, arguing that it is "not God's way", or is "unnatural".

Unfortunately, the belief that birth control is wrong stems from the top of the Catholic hierarchy. The Pope himself, and in fact all previous Popes, have opposed any form of birth control except "natural family planning." By this term, the church means one can avoid conception only by having sex during a woman's menstrual cycle when she is infertile because she has already ovulated and has not started to ovulate again. Interpreting this policy, it would seem the church is telling its contingency: "You can't have sex for fun unless there is risk involved." Because of the uncertainty of accurately predicting the period of infertility in a woman's menstrual cycle, the Catholic Church's official policy regarding birth control has been called "Vatican roulette." If we accept human frailty, which prevents couples from consistently refraining from intravaginal intercourse during "unsafe" periods of the menstrual cycle, we have a second reason why Vatican roulette doesn't work. Thus, Catholic families that adhere to official policy characteristically have large families even when (or perhaps especially when) they lack the financial and educational means to provide for and educate their offspring. It is claimed that the Pope, or rather the succession of Popes, has inadvertently caused greater human suffering than Adolph Hitler and the many despots of the world. It is therefore most important that religious leaders be made aware of their responsibilities to the human race.

Religious organizations that have traditionally been socially irresponsible must be censured. Although the Catholic Church has lost credibility because of the many sex scandals that have surfaced, the stand of the Pope and the Church on population control is the true scandal, which should be exposed for that which it truly is, the most serious crime against humanity that any organization could commit. It is possible that if the Church hears these views from their constituents as well as from outsiders, they will more quickly recognize the need for major policy changes.

Educating our political leaders, or electing well-educated, competent leaders, is just as important as educating our religious leaders. In a democratic society, this may require that the populace be intelligent enough to recognize the important issues and vote accordingly. Traditionally, this has not been the case in the U.S. For example, considering that George Bush, an environmental ignoramus, defeated Al Gore, an environmentally aware presidential candidate, illustrates the magnitude of the problem. The first action Bush took upon taking office was to abolish the pre-existing support for international birth control, at least partly in response to the demands of the religious right wing, an important part of his contingency. Later during his term of office he took the U.S. out of the Kyoto Accord, the international agreement aimed at curbing global warming that had been approved by the Clinton administration. Although the legitimacy of the 2000 election is highly questionable, enough Americans voted for Bush to reveal that we cannot currently count on a substantial majority of the U.S. citizenry to elect responsible public officials, and consequently we cannot count on the federal government to provide the much-needed financial support for essential social change.

         I believe that while education will benefit many, a large segment of the American population is impervious to scientific evidence and rational arguments. Educational approaches will therefore be necessary but insufficient. This means that we must appeal emotionally as well as intellectually to the masses. Since less than 10% of Americans and only about 1% of the world population own a computer, the internet, which is the cheapest available medium for the dissemination of information, will prove inadequate. Radio, billboards, bumper stickers, newspapers, magazines and particularly television, must all be exploited in order to bring environmental issues and the need for drastic human population reduction into the public eye. Unfortunately, these media are expensive. The efforts and money of many citizens will be required before the government will be able and willing to assume the lead.

         At present there is tremendous external pressure for Americans, and people in hundreds of other countries as well, to get married and have kids - even folks for whom families are not a priority. The pressure comes from many sources: potential grandparents and other family members may simply want grandchildren or, steeped in traditional values, they may want to see the family name immortalized; advertising agencies spend billions of dollars to promote products that are used by children; religious and social organizations promote traditional views without recognizing the perils and needs of a changing world, and a capitalist society is ever in need of an expanding labor pool. There is also negative pressure on those who choose alternative lifestyles. For example, there is still a stigma associated with choosing to live a single life or leading a lifestyle that does not include procreation as an integral step, such as homosexuality. Attitudes must change before we can change our value system.

I believe that social change can best be achieved through a combination of education and propaganda. Couples who definitely want children must be strongly encouraged to limit family size. They must be made aware that having more than 2 kids is socially irresponsible. Moreover, couples should be evaluated for suitability as parents before they are allowed to procreate. Just as a couple is evaluated before being approved for adoption, any couple that wants to have children must satisfy criteria, similar to those required of adoptive parents, before giving birth. From my own personal experience, and a lifetime of observation, I am convinced that a large percentage of Americans can be more productive and lead more fulfilling lives if they pursue activities other than procreation. The same is undoubtedly true in all other countries.

         To facilitate this transition, we should provide emotional support and monetary incentive to those who prefer or otherwise choose not to procreate. No one should feel a need to have a family so they will "fit in." Any lifestyle should be acceptable as long as it adequately satisfies one's personal needs and does not encroach upon the quality of other people's lives. No stigma should be associated with following non-traditional paths of self-fulfillment. The pioneering policies of communist China with respect to birth control and restriction of family size should be praised. China, in contrast to India, has tremendously improved the quality of life for everyone by limiting the birth rate and thereby increasing the resources available to its citizenry. The family planning policies of the Chinese government may be held up as an example of progressive legislation that we Americans should be proud to emulate.

         The selection of able and responsible governmental officials, as well as the passage of legislation that renders the destruction of planet Earth a punishable offense, and most importantly, restricts the human birth rate, will follow if the public can be made aware of the supreme purpose to prevent human suffering. Everyone must come to recognize their position of social responsibility and then act accordingly to bring about changes that promote the development of a caring, responsible world society. We have a need and a goal. The need is immense, and the goal will be immeasurably difficult to achieve, but the implications are far reaching. We want to improve the quality of life for a large majority of Earth's citizenry, not just for the privileged few.

         The success we have experienced in the recent past in having the rules changed concerning the right to smoke in public represents a significant advance that reveals the potential of a democratic society to effect change for the betterment of a large majority of its constituents. I see it as far more. It represents the hope that we can also progress towards a position of social responsibility. As the most powerful world leader, the United States must take the lead in bringing about essential social change. This will hopefully allow mankind to slowly but surely become an integral part of nature rather than the primary destructive force that brings about environmental changes inconsistent with human life. The hope is that we can realize these changes before it's too late.