Seattle Business Daily

How are human rights likely to be endangered by the growth of the world's population?

How are human rights likely to be endangered by the growth of the world's population? What rights are most necessary to protect? How can governments and quasi-governmental organizations protect human rights in the face of the changing world?

Public Comments

1. The more people we have, the more restrictions we have to control the masses. Each new ordinance detracts from human rights. Much of this is brought about because there are always those who believe they can fix everything by enacting a new law, Some good examples would be: guns, seatbelts, civic codes, etc.
2. Population growth as such is not a danger to human rights. But--as we've already seen in China--it can become an excuse for dictators or would-be dictators to use to abridge civil rights and civil liberties. But that is true of any issue--there's always problems--and there are always those who will promise solutions "if you'll just give me more power." As we are currently seeing in the United States. Skipping toyour last questions--governments may well be instituted among the people to protect individual rights--but they are also the greatest threat to those rights. It is not--and ultimately never can be--any agency other than the people themselves who will protect their own rights--and they can do so only by becoming--and remaining--an actively informend and involved citizenry. "Trusting government" is unwise--and trusting leaders is always disasterous. Sooner or later one--or more--of these leaders will be a demagogue seeking power for power's sake. The most fundamental of human rights is the right to life (and by that I do not mean the "pro-life" anti-abortion groups--regardless of their intent, this is ultimately based on a religious belief in the human status of embryos-and as such cannot be considered binding on those who don't share that religious belief). Beyond the right to life, freedom of expression is the core of individual liberty. This takes in a large area--the right to speak freely, to assembly peacefully, freedom of the press and religion. Without those freedoms, the notion of liberty is a hollow promise. In addition, these rights are the vital tools the people must have to protect their own liberty and to ensure a real democratic process. Nor can the government be allowed to operate in such a fashion as to indirectly intimidate, or abuse, the citizen either for its own purposes or in response to popular reactions to events. Where the fromer are concerned, that is why the Constitution of the United States--and the laws of other countries that we think of a s "free" all require warrents before law enforcemet may enter homes, conduct searches, tap phones, etc. And with regard to the latter, the concept of due process--so much reviled today by would be tyrants and their foolish supporters--is there not to protect "criminals" but to protect the individual citizen from either abuse by the government--or from the ugly passions of mobs, whether they be old style lynch gangs murdering blacks in the Jim Crow South or viracist vigilantes killing immigrants or gays--or attacking muslims--today. You will find no instance in history where abridgement of these rights has ever served to secure peace, national security, or any benefit to the honest citezen. You will find as motives for such abuses are always based on either a lust for power or a desire to subordinate some group--and you will find that support for such abuses is always derived from propaganda taht whips up public ffear and hatred. In no case will you find that the"threats" proclaimed by would-be tyrants actually exist, or if they do, have never required the denial of human rights to counter. There are no exceptions in all of human history.