In times past, nature enforced ZPG in another way:nthrough “crowd diseases,” the mortality rate of which risesnwith increased crowding. Tuberculosis, typhus, and thendysenteries are good examples. Until about three centuriesnago overpopulation was corrected spasmodically by onendisease or another sweeping through a region. In the GreatnPlague of the mid-14th century a quarter of Europe’snpopulation is estimated to have died in two years. Thenncame agricultural improvements, the sanitation movement,nand Pasteurian (modern) medicine. The corrective feedbacknof disease seemed to come to an end.nWill AIDS move us back to an eadier era when “Fate”nwas in charge? We don’t know. Certainly AIDS is a lousyndisease: the amount of suffering caused per human death isnhorrible. Not like cholera, for instance, where most of thenvictims died in two days’ time. (Rather simple measures,ntreating cholera patients like heatstroke victims, can reducenthe mortality from 95 percent to less than 5 percent.) If thendisease AIDS is nature’s new control for population growthnwe have much to complain about.nWe want something gentler than disease as a controller ofnpopulation. But what? To date, we have been unable tonagree on a substitute. We hope to find some sort ofncommunity control of the fertility of individual parents.nThat’s a tough problem for people brought up in thenEuropean tradition of individual freedom. We haven’t foundnthe answer.nWe can make progress if we will settle for less than a totalnanswer. We should try the incremental approach, adoptingnpartial measures that will slow the population growth, givingnus more time to look for more general solutions. In dealingnwith population growth, it is a blessing that the wodd isndivided into nearly two hundred nations. Different nationsncan try different experiments. By observing the success ornfailure of other nations we may be able to come up with anmodel that works for us. (If there were only one sovereignty.nOne World, then only one experiment could be tried at antime. Given our great ignorance, that would be a frighteningngamble.)nIn population experiments it is important that each nationnexperiment only with itself, so it can speedily observenwhether an experiment is successful or not. For rich nationsnlike ours the most feasible partial solution is an immediatenrestriction of immigration. At the present time, immigrationnaccounts for roughly 50 percent of our population growth.nSo the potential for progress in population control is great ifnwe do nothing more than see to it that the rate ofnimmigration is no greater than the rate of emigration.nActually, even though such a policy would be aimed onlynat improving our own situation, it would, indirectly, helpnother nations control their populations, too. No nation thatncan foist off its extra people onto other nations is likely tontake its population problem seriously. Gonsider how Gastronevaded Guba’s population problem when Jimmy Garter wasnPresident. The “Marielitos,” the boat people he shoved offnonto the United States, totaled some 130,000 — which wasnjust one year’s population increase for Guba. Fortunatelynour administration soon showed a rare display of couragenand indicated, “No more!” The Gubans have not, ofncourse, found a solution to their population problem yet, butnmaybe they will some day — if we (and others) refuse tonaccept their surplus.nGontroUing immigration means controlling borders. Tonjudge from most stories in the newspapers and on televisionnthis would seem to be so repugnant a measure that mostnAmericans would reject it. I challenge this assumption. Fornsome ten years opinion surveys have shown that a largenmajority (typically 80 percent or more) of Americans favornreducing immigration. Why then do the media put ancontrary “spin” on their stories of immigrants and immigration?nThe nation is schizoid about population. Explainingnthe discrepancy requires an approach that is almost psychoanalytical.nTo begin with, there is the Statue of Liberty — “Give menyour tired, your poor,” et cetera. “We are a nation ofnimmigrants,” we say. But so is every nation. Our trouble isnthat we recently grew by immigration; we haven’t yetnrealized that childhood can’t last forever.nThen there is that glorious banner, “One Wodd.” Mostnpeople assume this means, “One Wodd, Without Borders.”nBut it should be noted that the United Nations charter, anquintessentially idealistic document, asserts the right ofnemigration but not the right of immigration. To claim thenlatter would, after all, be to assert a right to invade.nOne-Worlders are not willing to go that far.nArguments for unrestricted immigration have ancientnroots in religion and philosophy. “I am a citizen of thenworld,” said Zeno of Gitium in”the third century B.G., andnthe Bible frequently praises universal brotherhood. Opposednto the seductive calls for cosmopolitanism andnuniversal brotherhood have been the equally powerfulntribalistic tendencies of mankind. To some extent, peoplenhave divided into two camps on the issues of borders andnloyalty. Broadly speaking, practical men have favored thenlimited loyalties of family, tribe, and nation. Universalnloyalty has been more enthusiastically promoted by thosenwho are somewhat alienated from the rank and file — bynreligious prophets and secular scholars.nIn generating persuasive rhetoric the One-Worlders havenbeen clear winners over those who would restrict immigration.nIt is painful to be abused by the emotion-laden termsnprejudice, bigotry, parochialism, xenophobia, racism, chauvinism,nintolerance, and provincialism. Those who wish toneradicate restrictionist national loyalties have been greatlynhelped by two images. The first is that of “SpaceshipnEarth,” based on the great NASA photographs of Earthnfrom space. The second is the heartwarming rhetoricalnimage of Marshall McLuhan’s “global village.”nIn the middle of the 20th century new strength was givennto the universalist argument by the threat of atomic bombs.nIt seemed quite possible that all-out nuclear warfare mightnextinguish civilization, perhaps even the whole humannspecies. It was argued that since it was the persistence ofnnation-states that made “the Bomb” so dangerous, we mustnget rid of nations and create a single wodd sovereignty.nThe proposal is tempting, but Bertrand Russell pointednout its fatal weakness in 1948: “A wodd state, if it werenfirmly established, would have no enemies to fear, andnwould therefore be in danger of breaking down through lacknof cohesive force.” Many of Russell’s readers felt that, fornonce, Bertie spoke with too much restraint. A single woddnnnOCTOBER 1991/19n