Where are we going, how can we change?

an investigation into the motivations for human action
as applicable to a sustainable future

Copyright © 2006, John H Wilde. Reproduction with acknowledgment is permitted.

The Rise of the Individual

The desire for liberty is essential.  It is restricted by the confinements of the body and the cognition of the mind.  At its simplest level, the individual does not want to be restricted.  Where a limit is established, the will wants to be beyond it.  Evidence could not be found to support a time where the will to exert individual influence has not been strong.  It has been recognized that the exertion of an individual’s will is destructive when it imposes on the liberty of others.  This is understood as an unfair balance.  Laws and rules have been created to regulate how much of any individual’s will may be acceptably permitted to dominate others.  The understanding of where one’s right for freedom to act ends and another’s begins is often difficult to ascertain.  Jurisprudence goes on to clarify where this line of understanding is drawn. 

The advance of time can be seen to have achieved greater clarity in what is understood as the balance of individual wills.  Greater clarity has led to more fairness.  However, fairness of balance is a never-ending struggle.  The predatory tendencies in any individual will always seek to extend its will to exert itself over others.  The most basic liberty is the right to have control over one’s own body.  The next is the freedom to choose and act.  The liberty of one’s thoughts can be restricted by the limit of exposure to education.  Of course, one can not be restricted from thinking, what thoughts he or she has access to, when no attempt to express these thoughts is made. 

That one person’s choice does not infringe on another’s liberty to control his own body is the most primary societal safeguard.  This is recognized by civilized societies in several ways.  Even in societies where freedom for choice of action and access to education is severely limited, the liberty of one’s own body is respected to a higher degree.  The extreme cases of murder or rape are clear infringements of the right to the liberty of the body.  Even though the right for an individual to refuse the using of his or her body in warfare has not yet been guaranteed, the recognition of the right to bodily liberty has been increasing over the course of history.  For instance, a lesser proportion of the world’s people are now enslaved.  Economic compensation is also more fair, through a minimum wage, worker’s rights etc, for those who serve others.  As well, the rise of professional armies and a relative de-emphasis of the honorific valor of war allude to a general, however low-lying, recognition of the liberty of one’s body in regard to military battle.  None the less, blind patriotism is still strong.

To be blindly patriotic, is to disavow any liberty over control of one’s own body and make its utility subject to the bidding of government control.   The professional army has two oppositional effects: one is to protect the bodily liberty of those who do not choose to sign-up, the second ensures less control of the liberty of the enlisted person’s body by effectively negating protest.  A professional, non-drafted military places a higher requirement on political leaders to use their soldiers’ bodies wisely, as social unrest opposing foolish decisions of when to wield military power will be less effective.  The United States no longer has a forced draft of soldiers.  As a consequence, the military has taken on the same nature as the police, to protect and enforce the will of the government.  The effect of this has protected the bodily liberty of those who do not choose to enlist, while ensuring blind devotion to government policy for those who do.  Many foreigners have asked why the American public did not oppose with greater vehemence the military action in Iraq.  The answer lies not in a greater ignorance of the average American, but simply, that the great majority of wise citizens had no bodily stake in fighting.  Those who highly prize their bodily liberty do not follow patriotism blindly, and tend to instill this belief in their children.  These people, and their close relations, do not enlist in the military, unless perhaps forced by economic disadvantage to do so to make a living.  For this reason, although the great majority of Americans would not have been willing to fight in Iraq themselves, they did not strongly protest the war or conduct widespread civil disobedience because their own neck was not on the line. 

Further, the most patriotic individuals are found among those who support the professional soldier.  They do not appreciate demonstrations on their behalf and have already agreed, on enlistment, to forfeit their bodily liberty.  The professional soldier honors the battle in the same manner that the fire fighter honors his work.  Both exhibit the admirable qualities of: respect of duty and fortitude to honor a code of responsibility.  This is also known as living up to agreements.  A large proportion of those who place high regard on the value of bodily liberty will choose to fight when the risk of it being infringed upon becomes too great.  For instance, American farmers and civilians in parts of New England, who did not want any part of the Revolutionary War, actively joined against the British army of General Johnny Burgoyne when their homes and families were directly at risk.  This was seen as a great strategic blunder of the English Army, to directly confront the non-enlisted person’s livelihood, and was a major factor in the colonial resistance which won independence.

The right for greater liberty to act on choice, supported by greater access to education, can generally be argued as increasing.   It seems that there is greater recognition that this is a basic fundamental liberty.  The right to act on personal choice normally will not be traded for the more fundamental right to bodily liberty.  A person will usually choose to stay alive before fighting for principles.  Without first securing an adequate measure of safety, the right to expression of choice will normally not be highly sought.  In the Eastern European nations dominated by Soviet Russia, although the public majority did not agree with the government ideology, most chose not to actively express their difference of opinion at the risk of loss of bodily liberty.  The same is true in those countries dominated by the most inflexible and ruthless types of ideology. 

In the American Revolution and Civil War, many chose to fight out of a sense of honor or did so out of a sense of professional duty.  Only later when confronted by the loss of bodily liberty, did others join the cause.  The soldier’s motivation to act out of a sense of honor, although still greatly present, has lost much of its value since the 19^th century.  This recent change in public belief in the valor of war is truly incredible.  The effect of the highly visible protests against unjust war and the most radical expression of the value of individual liberty in the 1960’s have made profound impact on the typical viewpoint.  Although much of this sloganeering retains an aura of naivety due to its negligence in appreciating the necessary and inherent qualities of the predatory nature required for societal success, the movement none-the-less has had large effect in swaying public perception.  This is most evident in the change of the American army by forced-draft to one by voluntary professional choice.  It is highly evident that the upper-classes, for instance, do not regard the military profession with the regard of a century ago.  This is most noticeable among the choices for presidents and congressional leaders who are now less likely to have achieved their status from military service.  The reputability offered by emulation of military traits has decreased with an increased value of the individual for the liberty to direct his own body.

The rights of the liberty of the individual have achieved great success since the age of enlightenment in victories over the personalities who would choose to lessen their equitable distribution.  Events such as:  The American Revolution; The French Revolution; the civil rights movements in:  The United States, India, and South Africa; and the demise of totalitarian states in:  Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan, and Eastern Europe point to an increased value of individual liberty.  In each of the above cases, the rights of the individual were opposed by the natural conservativeness of the institutions in power.  This is to be expected. 

Established institutions are by their nature conservative.  It does not matter which political party or organization is being considered.  The established institution is always behind the times of popular thought.  Inherently, there will be a lag in time from when new thought and beliefs are established in society, to when they are accepted and promoted by institutions.  Those institutions, whose leadership is most sheltered from the prevailing ideology of the mass, are in the worst position to accept change and will thoroughly oppose any new ideology that opposes that which is entrenched.  “These institutions which have thus been handed down, these habits of thought, points of view, mental attitudes and aptitudes, or what not, are therefore themselves a conservative factor.  This is the factor of social inertia, psychological inertia, conservatism.”¹³  This natural character of institutions to be conservative does have a valuable function in its role as a safeguard.  Most new ideologies are not beneficial to the society at large and will not be accepted.  The ensured opposition by the established order ensures that the society as a whole will not be continually, and possibly dangerously, ever-changing its beliefs.  This helps to maintain orderliness.  However, when swift change is needed to deal with unprecedented events, the institutional machinery will be incapable of assimilating these ideals easily.  At its most extreme, when the necessary change is radically in opposition to the existing institutions, but demanded in enough force, change will only be established through revolution.  “The evolution of society is substantially a process of mental adaptation on the part of individuals under the stress of circumstances which will no longer tolerate habits of thought formed under and conforming to a different set of circumstances in the past.”¹⁴

In some cases, the values of the institution may be able to accommodate change without their necessary destruction.  Where power is less rigidly held, and the influence of public opinion is allowed to influence the institution, such as in working systems of democracy, change may be accommodated.  Institution may change without violent revolution when they are sufficiently sympathetic to the viewpoint of the general masses.  In the fall of Soviet influenced governments of Eastern Europe, many of these nations were able to accommodate systematic change of political and economic institutions without much blood shed due to the lack of will of the totalitarian state to dominate the values of the general public.  This was also evident in the greater enforcement of civil rights by the American government in the 1960’s.  In each case, change is not initiated by the government, as this is not possible, but by the collective will of individuals.  Where the will of government is so strong so that the individual wills of the citizens can not be accommodated, it can only be overcome by violent means.  However, the softening effect, that was shown, in the Soviet block countries, over decades of time, eroded the will of the government (which had been sufficiently infiltrated by individuals who did not accept its ideology) to exert its influence over the natural inclinations of the people.  It is interesting that in these countries, where a forced equality of comforts of life was attempted, human nature did not appreciate it.  Because the individual will was not allowed to exert itself, to attempt to achieve greater comforts of life, the systems in countries like: Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, and the Baltic nations fell like a house of cards.  The values of self-determination and the liberty of the individual were more highly prized than an equal balance of the comforts of life forced by systematic control.  It would seem that any system that did not recognize this trait of the human-being would be flawed.

The cultural value placed on the liberty of a person to achieve success through the strength of his own will is perhaps the greatest indication of the rise of the individual.  Society recognizes the rank of capacity within different individuals as status.  Status is recognized firstly by pecuniary standing and secondly by personal accomplishment.  When both work to further the other, the reward of status reaches its highest acclaim.  To win a gold medal or an Oscar award are symbolic of the highest level of achievement in activities that are practically useless, but highly valued as a signature of the strength of the individual will.  When recognized by many, the winner may achieve fame.  Fame is public acknowledgment of an individual’s will to make itself known.  This may also be recognized as the desire for uniqueness.  This is working at the same time as the need to emulate the group. 

One may venture to be unique but it can only be culturally valued if conforming in large measure with the group.  Without some measure of cultural conformity, uniqueness will not be appreciated by others.  For instance, it is a common experience on the streets of a big city to be confronted by the outbursts of a street-person.  This is indicative of the desperation of the will of a marginalized individual to make itself known.  Because the expression is outside the cultural norm of accepted behavior it goes unappreciated and does not achieve the desired purpose.  In order to achieve the highest levels of fame (as opposed to infamy), one must, at one time, be seen as unique, but not outside the culture’s values for conformity.  Fame is highly prized in those cultures where the will of the individual is more greatly valued over that of the community.  For this reason, it is also highly financially compensated.  The ability to hit a ball into a hole better than anyone else does not make this activity any less purposeless, except in its ability to indicate the strength of the individual’s will to successfully exert itself, and within the boundaries of cultural conformity, to show itself as unique.

In the United States, the quest for fame is highly sought and indicates the great extent to which success is now determined by the ability of an individual’s will to exert itself and to make itself recognized.  The success of the community as a whole is cared mainly in how it makes this quest fairly accessible to the public.  The American does not have any greater propensity at birth to attempt to exert his or her individual will.  However, they may have more ability to attain fame due to the culture’s value to impose fewer barriers to stifle it with greater reward offered for its attainment.  Whole industries now exist with the sole purpose of the furtherance of the achievement of fame.

The Capitalist system values the liberty of the individual to exert his will by promoting the cultivation and use of the predatory nature.  This result is a predilection to protect the private liberty of those who have achieved greatest success over that of the general community.  This is perhaps most indicated in the cultural valuation of property ownership.  Property ownership is highly protected in the United States as a gain won by personal exertion.  The result is a land subdivided and owned in private sections.  Although, bodily liberty is now protected against the predatory economic forces of slavery and the most egregious unfair labor practices, it is not yet valued enough to counteract the extreme quest for privatization of land.  The body retains a desire to move freely and unencumbered.  Once out of shackles, however, it is limited to where it may tread and how it may get there.  For instance, many may wish to access the great expanses of American coastline.  However, the vast majority of this land is off limits.  The coastline of California is reserved almost exclusively for those who can afford to buy it.  A smattering of public beaches exist which teem with people attempting to have free access to this land.  This unequal distribution is considered fair because of the high-value coastal land holds in the public esteem and the necessary will that must be exerted by the individual to attain it.  The use of land for: golf courses, private communities, companies, and non-publicly accessible government lands, with the general unrestricted sprawl of private development, has led to an extreme limitation of access to the natural world. 

Even public city parks, which were originally promoted as providing an oasis in the hard city, and where all people, regardless of class, could access the healing effect of nature in the most democratic way, have been privatized by use and through the restrictions of their design.  The healing quality of the natural landscape for humans, understood and promoted by Frederick Law Olmsted, one of the truly great Americans, has been de-valued and forgotten by society.  The democratizing effect of the park as a respite from the predatory Capitalist struggle has been marginalized and largely destroyed even within Olmsted’s own parks.  Olmsted clearly and unambiguously stated in his plans for his great urban parks, like: Central Park and Prospect Park in New York, Franklin Park in Boston, and Jackson and Washington Park in Chicago, that they must freely provide all citizens a refuge from the city.  These places should be soft and green and intentionally contrast the hardness of the city.  They must be free to the public without areas set aside for competitive sports or lands devoted to exclusionary activities or commerce.  His vision has been eroded in his own parks with the insertion of segregating uses, such as zoos, golf courses, and sports fields, which require:  the paying of an entrance fee, the playing of a sport, or the joining of a league to have access.  His democratic vision of a park, free of competitive sporting activities, where all citizens could leisurely stroll, picnic, or engage in meditative activities, in the most unobstructed manner, has been widely destroyed. 

In contemporary urban park designs, the entire expanse is often segregated into baseball diamonds, tennis courts, basketball courts, soccer fields, parking lots, recreation buildings, and surrounded by a hard barrier.  A citizen, merely wanting to walk or run freely where he wishes, is not permitted to do so.  The quality of experience is typically neither soothing nor free of the predatory competitive spirit.  Urban parks, the size of a city block, are often entirely paved over in asphalt with the ubiquitous chain-link fence surrounding them.  The effect of these places is not dissimilar to that of a prison yard, with no value to the democratic quality of freedom or access to a healing refuge away from the harshness of urbanity.  Where the individual may go, and what they may do, is highly segregated even in these places, initially set aside with the intent for public enjoyment, but deprived of their value because of a general lack of understanding of design effect, and an ignorance of the powers of perception used to discern quality.

The general public is limited to what they may see and where they may go.  The individual’s will for bodily liberty is further confined by the narrowing of routes in which he may travel.  For ground transportation, the only good option afforded in America is by car and road.  Although, the land may be traversed more quickly and by more people, the ability for an individual unique experience has dwindled and is generally restricted by the highway.  On any given Saturday, hordes of people may be seen undergoing the exact same experience as their fellow citizen as they exit the northeastern cities of the United State on route to more rural destinations.  Although more are able to get away, the options, due to extreme limitations of good transportation options and land open to the public, hamper the ability to achieve a unique experience.  The result is that everyone has, ‘been there and done that’.  The uniqueness of experience may be better accomplished simply by staying put and honing the perception of your own environment.  As Thoreau said, “Direct your eye right inward, and you’ll find a thousand regions in your mind, yet undiscovered.  Travel them, and be expert in home-cosmography.”¹⁵  This is good advice.  However, as this is an investigation into the general predilections of humans, one may see that his uniqueness was unfortunately outside of general cultural conformity, and the probability of a unique experience in nature as he had at Walden Pond is vanishing.  Although Walden has been admirably preserved, it has become yet another tourist destination visited by the hordes exercising their wanderlust and to be checked off their list of ‘been there and done that’.

One final point on the valuation of bodily liberty as it relates to the rise of the individual in the American experience relates to health care.  Health care has been determined by the culture, as opposed to the other civilized nations of the Earth, to not be a fundamental right of the citizen.  Unlike the defense of national ideology (by the building and maintenance of military armament), communication (by mail delivery), protection of private property (by the police and fire department) and the protection of knowledge (by public education), the health of the body has not been determined to be a fundamental liberty.  The value of the culture has placed health-care in the realm of comforts of life and not amongst the primary liberty of the body.  It is afforded only to those individuals: who have achieved enough success, who have chosen a high value for the maintenance of their bodily liberty, or who have shown such an incapacity for success in the global economy that they are eligible for the charity of societal protections.  It has already been seen, in the numbers of patriotic Americans who enlist for professional military duty, that many will under-value their bodily liberty or will be forced by economic circumstance, to de-value it.  The lack of public guarantee of health care underscores the supreme cultural valuation on the will of the individual for self-determination, with little valuation for the well-being of the community at large.

The vanishing ability for the uniqueness of individual experience as well as the question of human sustainability on a finite Earth, in relation to the rise of the individual, forces one to contemplate the effect of population.  The question of human population and what number of human beings the Earth can support is the most difficult to be addressed.  It is also the most trying for human beings to come to grips with.  After all, everyone who has ever been known, was, or will be born, has been, is, or will be a part of the population.  The importance of the family, the human sexual desire, and the rights of the individual become intertwined when the subject is broached.  As well, the question of how many human beings the Earth can sustain becomes a topic for debate.  To think about human population, and whether it is something that human beings should be interested in controlling, needs to be critically answered.  When discussing future plans for sustainability, there is no more important issue.  Each can take a viewpoint on it individually, or can let it be decided by the course of events.  Either way, equilibrium will be achieved.  Whether or not one feels: the Earth has been overpopulated by humans for generations, is currently overpopulated, or can still sustain more humans, should be set aside for now.

We must first establish an understanding that The Earth is a finite object and that it is the only place suitable for providing the resources needed for living.  For many, this could seem like an obvious point, but apparently many people believe that humans can easily live in outer-space and that The Earth has infinite capacity.  Over the course of history, people have simply not needed to seriously think about the finite nature of the planet.  This is only natural.  Providing for sustenance and basic comforts is difficult.  The great majority is far removed from directly providing food and collecting water or looking through a telescope, and so do not actively perceive nature’s limitations and extents.  However, pictures do exist of a spherical blue planet with one moon orbiting it and The Sun around which it revolves.  Further information exists as to the make-up of other planets and the vast distances separating The Earth from them.  The value of science is to provide evidence and predictions of those things which can not be easily seen from our own limited viewpoint.

We are on an island and one which is all alone.  We must accept that the belief of easily finding food, water, and breathable air somewhere else, and the discussion of this possibility, is symptomatic of our great foolishness.  Those who would proceed under this line of reasoning would likely also subscribe that a good plan for retirement depends on the assumption of winning the lottery.  Only in this case, it is a lottery that is not even known to exist.

Some of our resources on this finite planet grow and renew, such as food.  However, food needs space and resources to be grown and is limited to its extent by the size of The Earth and the resources to grow and distribute it.  Therefore, it needs to be thought of as a limited supply that can not be exceeded but one that can be renewed.  Fossil fuels and minerals are only renewed on a geological time frame and one that is not relatable to the human life span.  These are simply used up and normally no longer available.  Of course, recycling can have some effect.  The physical space for human beings to make shelter is also finite, and actually decreasing with the rising of sea levels. Humans could live on space colonies but the resources for the construction of these colonies and for the food and water brought there would need to be taken from The Earth, of which only a limited supply exists.

Although The Earth and its resources are finite, the desire for the growth of human population is not.  The desire is infinite.  The liberty to procreate is considered a fundamental liberty of the body and to attempt to limit it would be outside the bounds of human nature.  Since humans have been able to minimize death and gain control over the resources of the earth, their numbers have increased without cessation.  The sexual desire and behavioral characteristics of humans have evolved to ensure continuous procreation and success of the species.  What was once a good adaptation, to compensate for the fragility of the human body to survive the harshness of his environment, may now be a mal-adaptation.  This leads to the dilemma of an infinite desire for greater human population at some point running head on into a finite capacity to sustain the population.  When this threshold is met human suffering is the result.  We have already seen at times throughout history, that suffering has occurred when resources become scarce.  Such evidence of suffering is currently evident in many third-world countries.  In the scramble to acquire the necessary material to allow humans to live, violence will erupt with the strongest taking what they need with others perishing. 

The one trend evident is that the human population is ever increasing.  Given this trend, the dilemma leading to suffering would seem guaranteed to occur.  Malthus explained a theory of geometric population growth two hundred years ago.  However, population increase has happened at a rate below what he predicted due to naturally occurring lower birth rates leading to smaller family size.  Suffering has also not been widespread as he predicted due to higher capacity for food production.  This discrepancy of what Malthus theorized, and what has actually occurred, provides a greater understanding of the accuracy of the mandatory nature of over-population.  The natural lowering of birth rates is important to understand for its application to the support of the advance of the liberty of the individual. 

It has been seen that in places which value: greater guarantee of civil liberty (especially that of women), greater access to acquiring comforts of life, and an increased awareness of the desire for romantic love being separate than that of simple procreation, there has been a natural decrease in number of offspring.  There is a fairly close correlation of countries who currently have achieved a high life expectancy, (which is the best measure of a lower degree of suffering), with those who have low birth rates.  According to 2005 CIA figures from the World Factbook, a person in The European Union, for example, has a life expectancy at birth of 78.30.  The EU’s fertility rate (which is the average number of children born per woman), is 1.50.  A fertility-rate below 2.1 will result in a lowering of overall population, assuming an even rate of immigration and emigration, and once time has elapsed for deaths to catch up.  A resident of Hong Kong has a life expectancy of 81.50 and a fertility rate of 0.93.  The country with the highest life expectancy, Andorra, has a life expectancy of 83.51 with a fertility rate of 1.29.  The numbers are not always in reverse correlation because of environmental factors, such as war or disease, which could yield both a lower fertility rate and lower life expectancy.  However, the convergence of the general trend is remarkable.  Switzerland’s citizens enjoy a high quality of life, low amounts of suffering, and have both a low fertility rate of 1.43 and a high life expectancy of 80.39.  The United States is only forty-eighth in rank of life expectancy, which does not support its own popular opinion as the country whose citizens enjoy the highest quality of life.  The assertion that population growth must be had for an expanding economy, which is necessary for achievement of a high quality of life is not supported by this evidence.  It is true that immigration must also be considered as well as an overall increase of world population and demand for exports.  However, the common valuation of increased comforts of life being achieved only by an increase in world population, necessary for a growth of overall economy and which is measured principally by conspicuous consumption, ignores the worth of the component of leisure. 

By common-sense, a person who works all the time without leisure can achieve a great display of status symbols but may have an overall low quality of life due to little leisure time.  This is a very common phenomenon in the United States where the display of material possessions is valued almost exclusively to time away from work.  It is also not considered, that with an increase in life expectancy, older people will naturally want to work into later years.  The desire for usefulness, although greatly underappreciated in our current culture, is innate to the species.  By allowing the expression of this to naturally occur, the burden, that a smaller younger population of workers would have to support a larger older one, can be accommodated.  Once death rates and birth rates even-out, and the population mix is again evenly distributed, less burden would need to be put on older populations.  However, they will still want to work, especially if greater bodily liberty in the form of heath care and comforts of life, achieved through adequate time away from work, are enjoyed throughout their lifetime.

Commonly recognized places of great suffering exhibit the same reverse correlation, of fertility rate and life expectancy, taken from the other extreme.   These cultures tend to place a strong value on larger family size, a lower liberty of women to control their body, and a less openness to discuss the nature of romantic love, (and by extension less availability of contraception).  These places exhibit at one time both a high fertility rate and a low life expectancy.  The result is wide-spread suffering and is recognized with world-wide sympathy in many third-world countries.  The highest fertility rate is reported in Niger at 7.55 with a life expectancy of only 43.50.  The tables of fertility rates and life expectancy are included in the index as a reference for common-sense.

The country that has most actively attempted to regulate its population growth through a forced government policy is China.  Efforts to control population by mandates in the more urban-concentrated areas have led to an overall decrease in China’s fertility rate.  However, this has been at the expense of bodily liberty and has led to negative consequences which increase suffering such as: devaluation of baby girls, high rates of orphaned children, as well as unethical methods for birth control.  The fertility rate in China only ranks at 174 and life expectancy ranks at 107 which does not suggest that forced mandates have good success compared to a cultural awareness of the value of romantic love as separate from procreation, greater liberty of control over the body, and greater access to attainment of quality of life.  The case of China helps to illustrate that forced mandates which opposes the free and educated choice of individuals is not the most successful means of controlling population and can not be considered a policy sustainable by human nature.  Unethical attempts at birth control, after conception, are opposed by the natural inclinations of humans, and are an ethical quagmire with no good result. 

The argument here is that a lowering birth-rate actually allows for higher life expectancy and the decrease of suffering.  These are to the advantage of the human valuation towards the rise of the liberty and quality of life of the individual and work in favor of a sustainable livelihood on a finite planet.  In the same manner, that the naturally occurring system of Capitalism reflects human value for things on a basis of supply and demand, without any need for centralized control, it can be argued that smaller families do not de-value children, but actually make them more precious.  The preciousness of children is understood as a common value shared by all people.  A lesser supply of children leading to an increased value of each within the entire society will be the result.  This, certainly, does not mean that families should be coerced into having lesser children, or that a family who has twelve children does not love each as much as a family with one child, only that from a societal perspective, the individual will be more likely valued and supported when there is less supply of that which is highly coveted.  The natural tendency supports this due to economic pressures such as: later matriculation from school because of greater need for specialized knowledge, and higher expectations of the quality of life by parents for themselves and for their children. 

The recognition of the separation of romantic love from procreation, which was another of the great societal changes of the 1960’s, promoted by open discussion and presentation by institutions of health, and by artistic expression, like rock n’ roll and movies, has had great impact on lowering birth-rates through the use of contraception.  The burden of contraception has generally fallen to the woman.  However, as the rights of women continue to gain protection in many cultures, the male may assume more of this responsibility.  The relative safeness of the male vasectomy could be practically seen as the best option for birth control, as opposed to female birth control by the IUD or pill.

Those institutions, who can not by their constitution allow for any support of romantic love, must naturally oppose contraception.  The Catholic Church, for example, can never support contraception without fundamentally altering it conception of sin.  This faith adheres to the belief of separation of soul and body.  The desires of the flesh lead to sin.  The sexual desire can only be supported then as a useful means to further the generation of the species.  This practical use is considered good and non-sinful.  Any action on sexual desire, which is solely conducted to achieve pleasure, is a sin of the body.  The moment an individual chooses to use birth control, he or she has made their belief clear that romantic love has a value in providing pleasure outside of purely for the conception of a child.  The church will not support the sins of the body and can not, for this reason, ever be seen to promote or support them.  Like other rigid ideologies in obvious and direct opposition to human nature (or laws that may be enacted but are not valued), they will be ineffective as means towards sustainability.  As evidence of the power of individual choice to decide for itself over dogma, although the Italian is regarded as one of the most romantic types, the fertility rate in Italy is 1.28, one of the world’s lowest.

Desire is intrinsic and necessary to all living things.  It is the yearning of the proton to the electron and what makes one eat or drink.  It is a feeling of need.  In the case of eating or drinking, without desire we would die.  The sexual desire is an innate attraction.  Attempts to eliminate or discount this desire have been shown to be fruitless and lead individuals into positions of hypocrisy.  The sexual desire will not be eliminated no matter how many rules are imposed.  The ability for the human to separate the useful ends of romantic love, for procreation of the species, or for intimacy, is an adaptation of the brain advantageous to sustainability.  This recognized duality of purpose of sexuality allows for the control of birth rate by contraception.

The rise of the liberties of the individual requires with it the rise of individual responsibility.  In the United States, there is an underlying understanding, by those who have achieved success, that they will be afforded opportunity to exert their will, but will also be required to be responsible for themselves and their family.  This is the fundamental principle on which the provisions for health care and retirement saving rests.  The lesser successful members of the society often do not comprehend the necessary component of personal responsibility being exercised when freedom of choice is allowed.  Without the recognition of personal responsibility, success will be more difficult to maintain.  The effect of the American mis-education system is seen quite plainly in this regard.  Those, whose teaching has come principally from the television set, popular music, movies, fad, and the lesser educated members of their environment, tend to be instilled with a false belief that irresponsible behavior leads to, and can maintain, success.  Better access to education and enforcement of laws are necessary to counteract this belief and protect the liberties of the general public.  Those institutions who promote the belief of irresponsibility can not be expected to change.  Their values will be conserved in the same manner as any other institution.  They will only be made less attractive when individuals exert more positive control over their own liberties by understanding:  cause and effect, the destructive force of over-optimism, as well as the principle that every action causes positive and negative reverberation elsewhere.  Non-action must be re-established as a good choice when action is not needed.