The mouse that roars: Stop This OverPopulation (STOP)

Whatever the Stop This OverPopulation (STOP) web site [http://www.iti.com/iti/stop/stop.html] lacks in expertise and snappy graphics it more than makes up for in misguided energy and enthusiasm. The web site belongs to one of the newer and smaller population organizations but one whose membership seems made up of true believers.

Although much of the website contains the usual propaganda in favor of population control, there are a few ideas which make the site stand out.

STOP proposes, for example, that “any employer who knowingly employs illegals [aliens in the U.S. illegally] should be exiled.” Now this brings a clarity to the immigration debate that few other organizations would dare reach for, no matter how much they might privately applaud such an idea. However the page under which this headline appears is blank which suggests that STOP hasn’t finished drafting the p1an’s details and logistical and legal problems loom.

For example, would the Irish nanny hired to help care for the children qualify to get you sent packing or would the penalty apply only if you hired a Mexican or other Central American to tend the roses? Or would there be some sort of numerical trigger? One employee hired illegally gets you a warning, two employees a fine, and the third employee gets you sent to… where? Poetic justice would seem to demand the employer be sent to his illegal employee’s country of origin but that presupposes that nation would have them. After all, if the United States needs to control its population growth by closing its borders, other nations may be lit to do so as well.

Another proposal, whose details also remain unfinished, would deny citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, thus reversing in one stroke a principle which has been in place since the founding of the Republic; if you were free and born on United States soil, you are an American citizen, end of discussion. Many Americans, including some of the STOP supporters, are probably here today because some distant ancestor understood this and sacrificed much so their descendents would enjoy being free citizens.

STOP also asserts that children of large families do not do as well academically as children of small, republishing an article from Newsweek1 to substantiate the claim. Too bad STOP didn’t read the article more closely. Although the sociologist interviewed for the story argues that parents of smaller families are better able to assist their children to achieve marginally better grades (‘“where the only child gets a B+, the children with five siblings average a B”), the article contradicts his research with the experience of the Callaghan family of the Detroit, Michigan area. The Callaghans, (ten children and a multitude of uncles, aunts and cousins) count a large number of college graduates and one millionaire among their members. Their experience suggests that a family culture which emphasizes cooperation, self-reliance and high academic goals can more than make up for a parent’s lack of one-on-one time.

Underpinning all these assertions are the usual collection of assumptions and ad hominem positions which make up the population control orthodoxy, though STOP offers them with a certain American twist.

STOP boldly declares, for example, that population growth has left citizens of certain American cities facing horrible commutes on crowded roads. This is something of a population bait and switch. While an increased number of people choosing to live in a given area will certainly burden the local infrastructure, elected leaders have a responsibility to develop plans for how to address this situation. It is inaccurate to blame increased population for crowded roads when a failure to plan responsibly is the actual culprit.

STOP makes a feeble run at building a case for ethical population control, although it retains a course of “population education” (i.e. scare enough people about the dangers of another child and they will not have one). A program of “education” would probably slip into coercion when the educators figure out many ignore their lessons.

STOP says, for example, that “‘population stabilization does not mean telling people how many children to have,” and “family planning does not mean abortion or even birth control,” when, in fact, in many developing countries that is precisely what those terms mean.

Real dangers asserted

Although much of what STOP has available runs more to the hysteric than dangerous, there are corners of the site which are truly dark. One of the letters the group has published, for example, is from a man who extols the virtues of quinacrine as a sterilization drug in women.

In a quinacrine sterilization procedure either a tablet or solution of quinacrine, a common anti-malarial drug, is introduced into the uterus near the fallopian tubes where it burns the tissue so severely that lesions are formed and scarring occurs. In order to “succeed” the procedure often has to be done twice2 and there are indications that it may be a strong carcinogen.3

The only drug trials involving quinacrine as a sterilizations method have been conducted in Vietnam and China, societies which cannot be considered free by any objective standard. Quinacrine is not approved for testing any where else in the world although there are reports of some groups who use it.

So what might the future hold for STOP? Much will depend on what path its organizers choose. If they decide to continue propagating the standard population control work then Webwatch expects little more than a slide into mediocrity. If, however, they begin examining issues with an open mind and fearless curiosity the organization might make a name for itself. The choice is theirs.