The "population explosion" of the past few decades has not been caused by reproduction, but by better healthcare world wide and the advent of more people surviving to a much older age.
Personally, I do not agree with the assertions of Christian Science Monitor. The "population explosion" of the past few decades may just as well be caused by mythology spread by a controlled media, which is to say, there is no actual population explosion going on, but instead, there is a "population explosion" being reported. It is difficult to ignore that the better the thought can be established that a population explosion is occuring, the more this helps further the cause of seemingly separate, distinct other agendas also endeavoring to convince the world of a particular something.... like, convincing the world that it's climate is in a grave, warming condition. Granted, for anyone disagreeing with these kinds of assertions, it certainly does not help the cause of disagreeing that there are A) no independent sources universally agreed as being an organization trusted to accurately study and report the validity of this kind of assertion and B) even if there was such an independent research body, there is no independent media available for them to get out to the public whatever genuine infromation they have to report. A great example of this dilemma is that somebody can assert any claim they want no matter how unsubstantiated such claims may inherently be; like, that there is better healthcare being experienced world wide, and follow this up with the assertion that people are surving to a much older age. Again, who is somebody that is known to be a legitimately qualified, independent organization qualified to gather these kinds of statistics, and where is the media outlet that is proven to be an unbiased outlet for reporting whatever kinds of statistics there are to report?
It is also my opinion that it takes a social engineer being behind an establishment reported by a controlled media to invent phrases of language constructed of, for instance, diamtrically opposed terms; compassionate; eugenics.... which seems just a warm N fuzzy way of saying "killing me softly" Just think about it. Every time a life is intentionally snuffed out, the media can report this as improved healthcare for the still living life, who can then be advertised that, thanks to it's benevolent establishment, it has a better chance at being fed a meal for another day while also living in a sligthly cooler world. The tag team of Orwell and Bernays could not have written and subsequently spun better.... marketed, selective murder. The trend that is being revealed here seems to be one where those who do not value the preserving of life other than their own want to be the ones dictating to other people they must die, for the greater good, of course. Once again, the world as we are told it is is upside down from what it is.
Here is a novel idea. As a prerequisite for operating the institute in charge of snuffing out lives, people advocating this policy must, as a token that they truly do believe deeply in this view, take their own life as credible evidence that they really stand behind such philosophy. This might just allow people who truly deserve to live to live, and those who truly deserve to die to die.