Every now and then, the perpetual worriers of the world come out of the woodwork and "educate" us on the latest pressing issue. Certain life-or-death movements come in and out of fashion, leaving me to wonder just how life-and-death they could possibly be. One minute, Styrofoam is the root of all evil and landfills are overflowing and we have no room to move about. Two weeks later, the survival of mankind depends on some random cause promoted by Ted Danson or some other Hollywood intellectual.

Now that our world's population has reportedly toppled the six-billion mark, we can look forward to hearing from population fanatics who have convinced themselves that overpopulation is a crisis deserving of our attention, not to mention government control. Groups like Zero Population Growth exist to help us "control" population and prevent what I presume are "unwanted" children. This is, of course, a delightful endeavor if you're a pro-choicer dedicated to the noble quest of ridding the world of "unwanted children." But such a policy reeks of the same barbarism of Chinese policy.

It tickles me that some Americans actually support the Chinese policy, which allows families to have one child and willingly aborts fetuses up to nine-months mature to enforce the policy. Molly Yard of the National Organization of Women, who could certainly use the "Steve McQueen treatment" for her remarks, said the policy is "one of the most intelligent in the world."

Suddenly we're resigned to killing the unborn for the sake of saving the world from overpopulation. Interestingly enough, no credible evidence supports such a silly worry. Never in our history has our ability to feed our population been so strong, and birth rates are lower than you might think. Actually, scientists predict they will continue to decrease. Pair this with the fact that a state the size of Texas has enough room to accommodate the entire world's population in terms of living space, and you see that we have little to worry about.

Our current resources afford us the ability to sustain a continually growing population, and advances in science show no signs of slowing down. These advances are viewed in a negative light by many as just prolonging the life of people who will eventually suffer from the doom overpopulation will soon bring. These people question the good accomplished with feeding third-world countries, and I'm afraid to ask what alternatives they might suggest.

I imagine that many of these alarmists hail from large cities where they see the world coming to an end from their perspective. Otherwise, I see little reason for any concern over reaching the six-billion mark and little reason not to believe that we will continue to make advances which will sustain even more life. If there were any evidence to support irrational fears of using up our resources, how would we justify government control over how many children families have? We have no need to fear being fruitful and multiplying. Of course, if you shudder at the nerve of a family to continue having children, I urge you, for humanity's sake, to have less of your own.

• Be Fruitful, Multiply