By the time you finish reading this article there will be an
extra 1,200 human beings on the planet. If that doesn’t seem too bad, let’s
extrapolate. This time tomorrow there will an extra 200,000 people on earth,
and this time next year there will be an extra 73 million of us – yes, that’s
correct, 73 million extra humans, out there, all over the bloody place: eating,
shitting and competing against each other to get ahead in the madness of the
human race.
The general consensus is there is no need to worry, because
if we just stick to the current plan until we all have university degrees, are
all millionaires, and all live to 120 years of age, then the population will
magically stabilise and we will all live happily ever after. If you find that a
bit hard to swallow and want to talk about population, be prepared to be
labelled racist, elitist, ignorant, communist, anti-freedom, inhumane,
non-human, emotionless, anti-god, stupid, backward or anti-progress. In short,
be prepared to be categorised as a “crackpot”. The topic is taboo. Both
religious and secular forces guard with ferocity the sanctity of human
procreation. (As a point of observation and not criticism, note that human
population is not one of the nine planetary boundaries.)
There are two absolutely inalienable human rights in
operation at this moment in human history: one is the right to accumulate as
much material wealth as you are able to, and the other is the right to
reproduce and create as many new human beings as your mind desires and gonads
can deliver. These two unwritten rights, as opposed to the other universally
declared rights, are exempt from the condition about not impinging upon the
rights of others. So being filthy rich and reproducing as much as humanly, even
biotechnologically, possible have been accepted as either having no impact upon
the wellbeing of anyone else, or, if they do, then that’s just too bad.
The objections faced by those who do wake up and smell the
humans can be categorised as follows:
- Overpopulation is a myth
- Carrying Capacity is within our control
- Growth will solve the problem of growth
and, last but not least:
- Don’t tell me what to do
Challenging any of the above positions will require thick
skin and a tenacious commitment to reality. If you do manage to penetrate the
taboo here are some thoughts on those areas of objection.
Overpopulation is a myth – Can’t you fit everyone on Earth
into the state of Texas?
“An Essay on the Principle of Population” was first
published in 1798 by Thomas Robert Malthus and “The Population Bomb” was
published in 1968 by Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich. Because the
predictions made in these works failed to materialise in the precise time
frames suggested, they have been boldly held up as ‘proof’ that overpopulation
is a myth. For deniers of this ilk we will have to be actually drowning in our
own excrement before they will concede that there is a limit to the number of
humans that can survive on planet earth. These well-known scholarly works that
have applied basic ecology to human beings did stir up a bit of controversy –
probably because their basic premise is sound and irrefutable. However,
predicting the future, especially putting a time frame on it, has always been a
risky business. But just because we can’t see the timer set on a ticking bomb,
that doesn’t mean it isn’t a bomb.
If you can manage to debunk the nonsense that just because
something hasn’t happened yet it will never happen, don’t get too cocky. The
die-hard growth nuts are out there in force, albeit mainly in cyberspace, and
they’re not afraid to make accusations of conspiracy theories to defend their
position that 9 billion, 10 billion, 11 billion more is nothing to get
claustrophobic about. For example, did you know that you could fit the whole of
the human population into the state of Texas. That sounds like a whole load of
cosy fun. Who knows? George W Bush might be your neighbour! Some people
actually believe this stuff though, which you can check out for yourself on
sites such as overpopulationisamyth.com1 – and if you’re after some light
entertainment, you can trust that Youtube2 will deliver.
Whatever tactics are used by the deniers, the outcome
essentially boils down to adopting the “no need to worry” attitude. Ironically,
raising the issue of human population has been deemed a nuisance and a
distraction when so many other important issues like food security, refugees
and human waste management need to be addressed. The mind boggles.
Carrying Capacity is within our control – Just tweak the
dials a bit to fit in the next billion
Putting aside the Texas solution, some serious efforts have
been made to try and answer the question of just how many people planet earth
can reasonably support. It is a simple question without a simple answer. Earth
systems are complex, and human beings, believe it or not, are just one variable
in the big picture of interdependency.3 What does seem to be gaining some
traction in the debate about carrying capacity is the number of planet earths
required to sustain the current population: about one and a half (not sure
where the other half is supposed to come from); and that if everyone wants to
live like a typical middle class North American or Australian (and by and large
that seems to be the case), we will need about 4 or 5 planet earths so we can
all be obese and own the latest smart phone. 4 Even though deep down we despise
ourselves, we pretend that we have mastery over the universe and that carrying
capacity can be endlessly increased. An equation developed back in the 1970s
can be used to illustrate this delusion of control.
IMPACT = Population x Affluence x Technology
To reduce IMPACT (more fashionably called ecological
footprint these days) – and to avoid the need to round up a few extra planet
earths and put them in the pantry – we console ourselves that everything will
all right because we can simply tweak the affluence and technology dials.
*Remember: the POPULATION dial has a big red DO NOT TOUCH sticker on it. The
global sustainability movement is looking at both of these, and in a simple
sense LEAN and GREEN have become the goals to address affluence and technology.
Disregarding those who preach the dawning of a higher level
of human consciousness that will usher in an era of universal infinite
abundance and lightTM, many of us adopt the slightly more realistic belief that
lean and green practices will save humanity from being flushed away by a rising
ocean. Hard cold maths applied with an
understanding of the Law of Entropy shows that even if we all recycle, reuse,
conserve, car pool, walk, convert to solar, plant trees, become vegan and share
everything with impeccable equality, if we do not stop the growth of our
species we will all be shoulder to shoulder (please bring deodorant) watching
the planet degrade into a wasteland. Whether it be with a whimper or a bang, it
will be game over.
Some technophiles still refute this scenario. The irrational
optimism in future technology as the saviour of humankind stands on par with a
faith in a supernatural being already having decided and planned our destiny.
So in the meantime, until God or machine intervenes, eat, drink, be merry and
have as many offspring as your liberal humanist free will demands.
Without wanting to make any absolute claims or cause mass
panic, it does appear that our best efforts at calculating a sustainable
carrying capacity for earth come in between 600 million and 2 billion. The
cognitive and emotional realisation that we may be at least 5 billion human
beings over the limit is so uncomfortable that, perhaps understandably, we
continue to deny the issue and pin our hopes on some technological wizardry
that will save us from ourselves.
Growth will solve the population problem – just like petrol
puts out fires
To drown out the likes of David Attenborough, Michael E.
Arth, Jonathon Porritt, Sara Parkin, Crispin Tickell, Dick Smith and Bindi
Irwin, the voices of government and business chant that economic growth is the
one and only pathway to a glorious future. The growth of the economy, as it is
currently structured, fundamentally depends on the growth of human population.
The argument goes something like this: economic growth will allow us to develop
the technology that will put ever increasing amounts of food on the table,
clean up the mess as we go, and raise our standards of living and education to
the point where we will simply stop making too many babies. If you are now
laughing you are excused – insanity can be funny. What is not funny, though, is
that a continual fear of scarcity is used to keep growth on everyone’s agenda.
In the real world though, an environment degrading rapidly due to over
population – by any species – will only be restored to balance by natural
systems – through reduction, not growth.
The paranoia, illustrated by when Bindi Irwin was branded a
neo-Malthusian5 by the Hilary Clinton machine, and the outrage stirred up by
the “psychopath” David Attenborough6 referring to humans as a plague, are
evidence that insanity prevails. And
anyone who dares to challenge the religion of growth is persecuted with a
fervour once reserved for heresy.
When I was born the human population of the planet was
around 3 billion, it is now over 7 billion, and will be around 9 billion by the
time I expire. No wonder that as we age and observe our fellow humans we
contemplate just how crowded it is going to get. The ubiquitous mantra of
growth, however, drowns out the ponderings of us old-timers. The good old
uncrowded days are dismissed as sentimental nostalgia. The politically
indisputable position is that the horrors of the past such as slavery, racism,
tyranny, sexism, disease and so on were only overcome by the growth of the
economy that facilitated improved technology, health and education.
Advocates for steady state economies, or steady state
anything, are looked at as having a screw loose, and advocates for powering
down or degrowth are dismissed as total lunatics. Our deep self-loathing is a
primary force that drives us onwards and upwards even when we do comprehend
that the end point is a crowded, filthy and desolate planet. The enculturated
fear that if we stop progress we will fall back into some abysmal form of our
true innate human nature comprehensively negates all challenges to growth.
Populate or perish burns strong within our loins even when cool heads see the
reality is populate and perish.
Don’t tell me what to do – what are you, a communist?!
So, if the public arena isn’t yet ready to tolerate
discussion on human population, what about bringing it up in our private
worlds? Convincing someone to use solar energy instead of burning coal is a bit
less daunting than raising the question of how many children we should have.
Have you encountered any of these arguments?
- Children should grow up with lots of brothers and sisters; it is good for them, only-children are spoilt and selfish.
- You can’t tell people how many children they can have – they tried that in communist China; you can’t really want that sort of government control over the people, we here in the West have fought long and hard for our freedom. (*note: The Chinese communist regime originally encouraged population growth; it was their successors in the late ‘70’s who instigated the one-child policy – which only applies to just over a third of the population – to address the consequences. 7)
- I came from a family of four and that’s how many children I want to have.
- Contraception is against the will of God; besides, a condom reduces my sense of pleasure.
- I’ve got six daughters but I haven’t had a son yet to carry on the family name.
When population is on the table for discussion, as rare as
that unfortunately may be, the issue, like many other issues, can get bogged
down by complexity and erupt with emotion. Immigration, education, religion,
contraception, carrying capacity, renewable energy, consumption and welfare are
all relevant spaces within which the debate rages. These topics ought to be
reflected upon, and discussed in public and in private. However, even if we do
develop more benign means of existence, the issue of population will not
disappear until we accept that there is a limit to the number of humans that
the planet can support in any sustainable and desirable way. Simply put,
political objections do not render scientific realities moot. Sufficient global
solidarity on this point will only be achieved when moral responsibility for
the problem is taken on by individuals. While the topic of human population
does remain taboo, then simply encouraging and engaging in dialogue, as complex
and as uncomfortable as that may be, at home and in public, is perhaps at
present the most effective action that anyone can take.
No comments:
Post a Comment