Letter to Editor on the Population Problem
463 North Ridge Avenue
Lombard, Illinois 60148
January 18, 1970
401 North Wabash
I applaud Michael Harrington’s comments on the population problem. The resources of this country can support only so many people. It therefore seems clear that restrictions on the number of children a couple may have Mill eventually become necessary anyway, so we may as well impose these restrictions now, while we still have a little elbow-room. As the population of the country increases, society must become more tightly organized in order to cope with the problems of running a crowded nation. Thus Individual liberty diminishes. Cn the other hand, if the population of this country were to decrease significantly, it would probably even be possible to eliminate some of the restrictions and regulations that we now put up with.
In order to maintain a stable population, the number of children allowed per couple would probably have to be between 2 and J. This means that some couples would be permitted to have 2 children, while others would be permitted to have 3. The problem is, who decides which couples may have 3 children? I think it is essential that the decision be made on the basis of a lottery allowing every couple an equal chance of being permitted to have 3 children. If the government were allowed to choose the 3-child couples, it would of course choose those countries likely to raise children having “desirable” characteristics. Thus the government would be making a decision as to what human characteristics are to be considered “desirable“. In all probability it would choose docile people who don't make trouble; conformists who don't buck the system. A consistent policy of selecting these characteristics would eventually result in application in which there is no dissent or criticism of the establishment. That would mean the end of democracy.
Theodore J. Kaczynski