‘Control’ over human reproductive activity explicitly means dominating the inalienable right to procreate. In some government circles the word has been substituted and masked but the domineering procedures are still obvious and nearly always venture beyond education. As implemented in India’s sterilisation programs and China’s onechild policy, individual identities are stripped down and thrown into a political think tank of theoretical expediency. The Hunger Games and Auschwitz are brought to mind. Nor can we regard ‘overpopulation’ as morally legitimate. The expression implies that there are some humans, some demographic racialistically chosen, with notional not unquestionable rights—that warrant nonessential concern. This group is contingent on the system but damages the system’s cost-benefit breakdown. They are thus excluded from utopian theories, and need not exist at all. This is where the fears of policy planners and politicians betray common sense, natural wisdom, and ‘wholeness’. Arranged on this callous platform, how do leaders think they are leading the human species? Where are we being led?
Existential-natural regulation
What is reasonable is for human populations to regulate themselves naturally. (Autonomous brain activity is universally applied here.) Natural regulation is exercised when individuals take personal, existential responsibility for their actions and try to karmically connect them to their environments. But essentially, fears associated with prejudice and identity must first loosen their grips on the public psyche in order for citizens to fee ???X[ H ?\???X?K??] \?[ ?Y?[][?[??? ?\?H ?[?Y[?][????[][?]Y\? ? H?\??\??? ?
??Y][Y\??H?[????[?\?]X?H ???H ?\?X?H?\?Z[?? ?X?X?\???^[\K\?H ?Z[??[?Y[? H ?[?]X?X[?Y?X? \?[??? ?X????\? ?Y X?Y ?H ?Y?K?] \? Y] ??^\?[?]?[ ?\?] \????] ?X??H?\?Z[??\?X[?Y?X? \?Y H [X[? ? [][?[? H?\? H???\]Y[??\?[?? YH ??[\???[??[? H?[??\? Y?YK?Y] ?[? [?H???H ?[??[? Z\???? H????X??Y\? ? ?[?? [?H?]X[ Y\?Y[?[ H[? \?X?[ K[????\??? ?Y[?\?[?^]\?X?K?\?H ?\?[ ??YB??