Sharks: A Possible Solution to Human Overpopulation

Sharks would appear to be compelling creatures. They are of a scale to contend with man. They are ancient and unchanging and therefore, as with most life forms, perfect in some sense. They rely on cartilage, rather than bone for structure, thereby giving themselves a flexibility not enjoyed by bony creatures. They are reported to be insensitive to infection. They are not particularly valuable as a food source. They are essentially consumers, and have no interest in flavor, caring only for filling their interior, a never ending task. They incline to night hunting near shore and retreat to the depths during the day. They are ubiquitous and come in many forms from the monstrous Great White to the common Dogfish.
Since overpopulation is a question of great concern to humans at this moment, we could ask, why do sharks not experience an overpopulation problem? Overpopulation normally results from the loss of the symbiotic relationship between predator and predated. Since any species will have adjusted its propagation rate to compensate for predation, when predation stops the natural result is overpopulation.
The shark appears to lack a predator. It has achieved this status by producing a body exciting no interest in larger creatures, perhaps due to the impossibility of rupturing the skin, perhaps due to offensive interior chemicals, perhaps due to the damage the potential predator can expect in a conflict. For whatever reasons, even germs and viruses avoid the shark, I am told.
And yet, no overpopulation is to be observed. All sharks appear to be healthy and well fed. Certainly up until 100 years ago when man became a problem for them.
The only answer that suggests itself is a reproduction rate that exactly balances the death rate. A death rate that results from old age and accident only. So, what factors enter into rate of reproduction? Primarily life span. So, the method to be used in controlling reproduction is life span alteration. The shorter the life span, the fewer offspring. So, how can a species alter its life span?
Nature will take care of it automatically, as it were, over several generations, but, we don't appear to have several generations to spare. Could we do it artificially? Of course the natural method is mistake proof, but involves a lot of suffering while the artifical method is mistake prone but could save a lot of suffering.
There is a syndrome, the name escapes me, but the main symptom is rapid aging. Children of 10 years of age appear to be of extreme age. Their skin has lost all resiliency, their hair is falling out. The usual symptoms of old age. Were we to isolate the chemicals produced by the body that result in the aging phenomenon, it would be possible to artificially introduce it into some particularly attractive consumable in a public way, so that it would be a matter of choice, cigarettes for instance. That way, should an individual desire to survive a long time, he could avoid the drug, but most wouldn't care so much, preferring the temporary pleasure of ingesting nicotine. The result would be much more rapid aging for those that smoked most, and a general increase in aging over the entire population and therefore reduced reproduction. Considering the rate of cigarette use, this method could be expected to have near instantaneous results, especially if the feminist campaign against smoking were brought to an end in the interests of survival of the species.

Other considerations:

1. This essay assumes that the reader has already reached the stage in his thinking that concludes that overpopulation is already an enormous problem affecting every aspect of our lives. If not read this.
2. This is a very difficult problem for man to deal with and remain moral. Most suggestions will involve imposition from the political hierarchy onto the population and the killing of humans. This solution involves choice by a knowledgeable populace and no violation of generally accepted moral precepts.
3. This solution will require reorientation of human thinking on some points. The generally accepted notion, true on the individual level, that death is an opponent to be fought, is untrue at the species level. Instead it is best thought of as a tool used to guarantee survival.
4. Isolating the chemical responsible for aging has some dangers. If it could be used to shorten the human life span, the reverse may also be true. However, this option would probably only be practical for small numbers of wealthy individuals. "There is no such thing as a free lunch".
5. A possible benefit of this particular method of dissemination, through cigarettes, is that the medical problems attendant on cigarette use would be largely bypassed. The smoker would die of old age before they have time to develop.