One of the arguments used by liberals that irritates me the most is the argument of overpopulation. With 6 billion people and counting, these apologists argue, we cannot possibly produce enough food to feed the population of the planet.

This is one myth whose time is long overdue. Here's why:

The state of Texas has a land area of over 260,000 square miles. There are 640 acres to a mile. This means that the world's entire population could fit inside the state of Texas, with 1/4 acre for each man, woman and child...the rest of the world would be unpopulated.

Now, I'm not arguing that we should move everyone to the state of Texas; quite frankly, I'd have a nervous breakdown. But what I AM stating is that this puts into perspective the population of the world as compared to its land mass. 1/4 acre would be more than ample space for a person to provide themselves with the necessities of life.

The problems of poverty, and of overpopulation in specific regions, are very real, mind you. Southern California, for instance, is an example of a region within the US that has exceeded its carrying capacity. As compared with New York City, which is placed in an area with abundant natural resources, Southern California is a desert climate, and unable to sustain the vast millions who call it home. The region imports its electricity (Hoover Dam provides a good portion of it), its water, and much of its food. One of the most obvious logistical problems in importing these things is that the transfer of these goods has to account for a certain amount of loss; water evaporates, food spoils, elecrical power diminishes over distance. Add to that the possibility of accidents (pipeline ruptures, shipwrecks, among other things), and the rule of thumb is, the farther you have to transport your basic goods, the greater loss will be involved.

In foreign countries with different governments, the inefficiency increases. Because of international quarantines and bribes, which are a CUSTOM in many foreign countries, food often sits in ports longer, which only increases spoilage, decreasing the effectiveness of the foreign aid dollar. The aid is distributed to the standards of the local government rather than international standards, and thus, the most needy are often denied aid due to a spoils system within the local governments.

The question, then, arises: what should we do about foreign aid? The answers are quite simple, I believe.

• We should work with local government to develop agricultural programs within their own countries. The USDA is already doing this, but more of our "foreign aid" dollars should be diverted to these sorts of programs, which develop sustainability rather than long term dependence
• We should attach qualifiers to the foreign aid we send; it should be distributed based on need, not political standing
• We should encourage governments to enact fair labor standards to create a better standard of living for individuals within aid countries

Individually, we should concentrate on resource management, conservation, and private contributions to foreign aid programs. It's not a legal right of ours to care for these citizens, but it SHOULD be construed as a moral right. We should also eat consciously, recognizing that eating lower on the food chain provides more food for the dollar and uses less resources, leaving more to those in need. And we should watch our energy and water consumption so that the resources available can be allocated more efficiently (did you know, for instance, that a 19 inch TV set uses HALF the electricity of a 25 inch TV set?)

The problem is NOT overpopulation, the problem is poor stewardship. And that, dear readers, is a problem we CAN remedy.