an opinion leader and an associated issue briefing, the Economist news magazine last week (Oct 29 issue) reported on the worldwide decline in fertility rates, which mollify concerns about how to address the “overpopulation” of the planet. (The “fertility rate” is a technical term from demography–how many children a woman has during her lifetime.) In the undergraduate teaching program in Environmental Studies I helped found in 1999 at Emory University, I would survey incoming freshman on what they thought the world’s most pressing environmental issues were. Nearly always, they expressed grave concerns about “overpopulation”, by which they mostly meant population growth in less developed countries. Never mind that the United States and other first world nations consume far more than their share per capita of the world’s resources–these students were worried about the sheer number of people the planet would be called on to support.
[caption id="attachment_412" align="aligncenter" width="500" caption="Overpopulation?"]
[/caption]
What to do about it? I shudder to think about the despotic and manipulative practices a few of the students advocated. Some were insufficiently repulsed by China’s draconian “one child” policy. So many had already picked up their not-so-latent misanthropy in old-school environmentalism–the evil “lifeboat ethics” of Garrett Hardin and others. Others, more enlightened, figured that easier access to contraception would help reduce birth rates, although the Economist article shows that this is rarely the case. Families the world over have about the number of children they want to have.
Falling fertility is most obviously a result of the demographic transition–first infant mortality declines due to modern medicine, leading to a short-lived population boom. Then other factors make large families less attractive, and enlightened public policy has reduced birth rates as a side effect. When stable financial systems make it possible to save for old age and even participate in pension programs, when education for girls, rising pay and job opportunities for women make employment possible, when industrialization moves people off farms, it is no longer so attractive to have large families for economic survival, as the article details.
So the “problem of overpopulation” is taking care of itself. Public policy should focus more directly on the things that make people better off, rather than trying to control their reproductive decisions. Coercive population control is immoral, and other efforts at regulating population are less effective than helping families lead productive, rewarding, and flourishing lives.
[Source: RustyPrichard.com -Thanks Rusty!]]]>
I understand the logic of the argument that economic prosperity and education reduce family size because it is no longer advantageous. I'm sure there are studies to support this assertion. The fact is that the population continues to increase and the world continues to produce enough food to feed the world several times over. So far, the population is not declining. Until we can prove without a doubt that we are reducing the population we should assume that it will continue to increase.
I am not convinced that globalization will have the effect of spreading economic prosperity and education to all. I agree that coercive tactics are counterproductive, but that doesn't make population a non-issue.
It seems clear to me that the earth has a carrying capacity. I'm not an ecologist so I'm not sure whether this is even in debate. If that is true then we should not so easily dismiss concerns about population growth. When do we reach a tipping point where the earth begins to reject us as a parasitic species? We are not dealing with an inanimate object, but a living ecosystem that we understand much less than we care to admit.
I'm interested in feedback, because I'm not an expert in this field. I do work in the areas of hunger, poverty and agriculture, but my education is in theology. I am an avid armchair quarterback at everything else.
Lucas, I'm no expert either. Rusty, who wrote the article is much better at discussing this issue. I do however tend to think that our problem is not how many of us there are but how we are living that is the key issue in thinking about sustainability. I also am in sharp disagreement with the notion that we need to employ social engineering techniques or government mandates to curb population. I'm concerned that in the name of sustainability these kind of 'solutions' will actually create an overbearing environmentalism that will seem justified but is actually casting a negative judgment on human value. I don't think the 'Humans as a scourge on the earth that must be stopped' is a paradigm that will lead to a just and sustainable future.
Hopefully we can get Rusty into this conversation.
Thanks for checking out the new blogazine Lucas -I'll be talking to you sometime about featuring one of your articles here. -shalom!
Found a very interesting article on this topic. Well worth reading: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/200…
my concern is that our distaste for social engineering solutions combined with suggestions that population is not a real problem lead us to ignore the reality that an ever increasing population is not sustainable.
Sorry it took me a while to get back to this thread. I was hoping to hear feedback from the author if possible. The population question is one that continues to haunt me.
Hi Lucas, the author, Rusty, is a busy guy I think, so he may not reply. I am no expert on population momentum so I can't speak to the intricacies of the issue. I do believe though that it's best to talk about issues, especially environmental/societal issues, in localized contexts. India may be overcrowded but New Mexico is not for instance.
I think when we globalize an issue or even peer at issues through the lens of any Federal government people get reduced to numbers and in turn 'solutions' are developed that follow in an increasingly dehumanizing path over time. Social change and sustainable development needs to not originate at the hand of the State in my opinion. Many hands make light work but two large hands tend to crush many without meaning to. Can the large hands of the State ever heal or truly restore balance without causing more imbalance and pain?
I guess I'm at a place where I think we need to handle our societal and environmental issues from the bottom up not the top down. We've abstracted our sins into global problems and are attempting to redeem the world with massive policy changes. I don't see social engineering as a redeeming effort at change because it is initiated from the top. I guess my point is we need to relocalize issues like population momentum and stop trying to enact macro-solutions against a myriad of diverse situations.
Also, when I think of social engineering I think of it's worse logical outcomes and modes of operation: tyrannical laws, propaganda, eugenics, etc. People become numbers as the machine seeks sustainability. I guess I'm wondering who's definition of sustainability we're accepting and whether it's really an abstraction of the issues or truly something empowering communities to address their own future.
Looking forward to talking more Lucas!
Shalom!
Good post Jason. Certainly the unsustainable population growth in Haiti, for example, which is the most densely populated place in the hemisphere, has contributed greatly to its misery and to the devastation of its environment and natural resources. But I highly doubt there are any “one size fits all” solutions. Declining populations in places like Japan, Russia and Western Europe, for example, lead to the destruction and unviability of the social safety nets and socialist institutions there, as there just aren't enough young people to support the increasingly older population. The issue of whether there is an issue with sustainable population growth depends upon what part of the planet you're looking at. Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Europe, for example, have entirely different experiences. In Europe large-scale immigration from Africa is occuring. I think we'll continue to see such world population shifts as the people of the lesser developed world move into the developed and over developed world.
Hi Bill, that tends to be my thinking. Most of our sustainability issues and societal woes have to be addressed appropriately within the context of 'place'. Looking at our problems from a global perspective is too abstract in my opinion. We can help each other address certain issues as nations but I'm against creating top down global policies to answer very specific regional needs. -shalom!
Hey guys,
I totally agree that we need bottom up solutions. I am less and less convinced that the macro policy solutions are the answer to the problem. At the same time we have to keep our local, contextualized efforts within the context of the macro issues. localized solutions are the answer to our macro problems. However, that doesn't mean that we don't have macro problems or can simply ignore the macro issues while focusing on the micro. I feel strongly that they have to go together, partly, because we currently live in a globalized context where no matter how localized our work it continues to be connected in many ways to the global economy. I'm worried that we simply marginalize macro issues and ignore them entirely by working on localized solutions without the bigger picture in mind as well.
does that make sense?
population is an issue on a macro level. we must deal with it on a contextual level, but in many ways we may not know how to deal with it on a local level if we aren't also thinking about it on a macro level… now i'm just repeating myself. sorry.
Hey guys,
I totally agree that we need bottom up solutions. I am less and less convinced that the macro policy solutions are the answer to the problem. At the same time we have to keep our local, contextualized efforts within the context of the macro issues. localized solutions are the answer to our macro problems. However, that doesn't mean that we don't have macro problems or can simply ignore the macro issues while focusing on the micro. I feel strongly that they have to go together, partly, because we currently live in a globalized context where no matter how localized our work it continues to be connected in many ways to the global economy. I'm worried that we simply marginalize macro issues and ignore them entirely by working on localized solutions without the bigger picture in mind as well.
does that make sense?
population is an issue on a macro level. we must deal with it on a contextual level, but in many ways we may not know how to deal with it on a local level if we aren't also thinking about it on a macro level… now i'm just repeating myself. sorry.
Apparently Rusty has not responded on this site, but lets put out a few facts rather than the politically correct overpopulation denial. Pakistan will add 10,000 school children to its school system today, and they will do it again tomorrow, and the next day, and every single day this year, or in other words more than 3.65 million children who need school rooms and everything else that growing kids need. There is no doubt that the planet’s richest people must learn to share with the poorest, but that does not negate the reality that 10,000 new students every day is an environmental and economic disaster. Overpopulation is real, and liberal deniers are making the problem worse.
Thanks for the comment! Your right- Rusty doesn’t comment here as he is a busy man- actually right now he is in Haiti from what I understand- helping with rebuilding efforts. My personal thoughts are this: population saturation is a real problem in many cities all over the world- but to abstract the issue into a planetary context creates many more problems. I believe we must have concern for the global poor -especially in areas of population saturation- but I take opposition to the line of thinking that says because there are too many people in many cities that somehow we are overpopulated as a planet. Without localized means of addressing the issues we can only create mass policies that don’t meet the real needs of each unique region. Does that make sense? Looking forward to your reply. -shalom!
I’d like to share some thoughts I’ve had with regards to this large end time human population and the scriptures. Never has mankind in the past 1000’s of years been so large in number. What IF this is in bible prophecy? Consider how people of today are called ‘consumers’, well what is a good symbol for a highly consumptive species? How about ‘Locust’? More and more I’m seeing the account in Joel and Revelation about the Locust as a symbol for this great consuming mass of mankind that has been birthed out of the industrial revolution. However I don’t see this huge body of people being sustained because it’s feed more by destroying living systems rather than being part of the living systems on earth.
So in addition I have begun to consider that the ‘drying up of the river'(Euphrates) is also a reference to the failing of the system to continue to feed and sustain the people of this age.