Of all the elephants collecting lately in our living room, there’s one that just keeps getting bigger: overpopulation. Small wonder we don’t want to talk about it – even the word is offensive, as if humans were coyotes or feral cats. You might as well just say “We need to cull the herd!”
Back in the 60s, in the wake of the first baby boom, everyone was talking about it. Famines were a common occurrence, and, as population growth began to resemble an exponential curve, the future was looking scary. It was also becoming apparent that the entire planetary ecosystem couldn’t comfortably support 3 billion people. Now there are 8 billion.
By the 80s, discussions had become more nuanced, incorporating an understanding that overpopulation is largely driven by poverty, because subsistence farmers with little health care and no social safety net are motivated to have as many children as possible. But it was also becoming clear that the entire topic was a minefield, filled with intimations of racism, eugenics, and eco-fascism. Religions, for various reasons, decided to strongly oppose any form of birth control, discussion closed. Meanwhile, advances in agricultural technology were dramatically boosting food production, which, it was hoped, might finally end the specter of mass starvation. And so the world collectively decided to talk about something else.
The good news is that the entire problem seems to be sorting itself out – slowly. After reaching a certain level of economic security, people do tend to opt for smaller families, and Catholics have become more comfortable ignoring the dictates of the Vatican. Amazingly, people are now fretting about shrinking population. Oh gosh, I wouldn’t do that.
Of course, it’s complicated. Then again, it’s pretty simple: the planet struggled to support 3 billion people, and as we approach three times that number, it’s being crushed. Climate change is like a big bill coming due, one that we have no choice but to pay. This is perhaps not the time to run up more debt.
Again, I’m optimistic, and can see this whole problem working itself out. Alternately, I can see things ending in disaster, which seems to be where we’re currently heading. Amidst all the talk about carbon footprints, no one wants to consider the most likely scenario: the poor of the world, thanks to the Internet, now have a clear view of how the 1% lives – and definitely want in. A family that was content without even a refrigerator now aspires to a designer kitchen. Dad’s bicycle needs to be replaced by an SUV. And yes, they deserve these things as much as anyone.
I know it’s all relative, but it seems there are some things everybody needs to live comfortably in this world. Growing up in Los Angeles, I took these things for granted: we had electricity, hot and cold running water, a roof that didn’t leak, and plenty of food on the table. At a minimum, everyone in the world should have these; but an optimum baseline would include plenty more – Internet, transportation infrastructure, affordable healthcare, etc.. If we aspire to provide these things for every person on the planet, the scope of our challenge becomes apparent. Then if you add in all the comforts and conveniences that we modern folk have come to expect, the planetary carbon footprint goes off the charts.
Some visionaries try to describe a world where all this works – where technology solves every problem – but this isn’t our current trajectory. Even if Westerners learned to dial back their extravagant overconsumption (which we show absolutely no signs of doing), if the rest of the world attains even a fraction of our affluence, we’re cooked. Even providing food and clean drinking water for 8 billion people is overwhelming our ingenuity; how will we possibly provide everyone with a shiny car in the driveway of their air conditioned home?
One proposed solution involves concentrating everyone into high-rise apartments, which, speaking for myself, might be a description of hell. Part of our problem, it seems, is that an increasing portion of humanity is so detached from the natural world that they no longer particularly care about its health and welfare. To them, people and relationships and communication devices are the primary source of life’s joys and pleasures, and adoration of nature a possible sign of misanthropy. I guess there’s no crime in being an “indoor person”, but I think most people, given the choice, would prefer a home where nature is close at hand, where they can enjoy not only people, but also the beauties and wonder of our planet.
I don’t mean to denigrate the utility or even desirability of living in a well-designed high-rise; but when, in our desperation, we start building cities of warehouses for people, there is clearly a problem.
These are the facts of the matter: water supplies and tables are dwindling rapidly in many parts of the world – soon growing crops for ethanol may seem like a silly idea – and modern agricultural practices are unsustainable in multiple other ways. Our growing population is forcing increasing numbers of people to live in harsh and unhealthy environments. The impacts of human civilization are overwhelming the ecosystems we depend upon to survive. And even if scientists are only halfway correct, it seems that climate change is about to take a big bite out of all of us, necessitating a major retooling of human life support systems, all over the planet, all at once.
I don’t claim to know the exact number of people this planet could comfortably support – but I know that only a small percentage of present humanity would use the word “comfortable” to describe their life. One can point to many causes – consumerism and materialism here, political corruption and social instability there – but the simple fact is that we’re miles from our goal. When people in the US and Europe fret over the influx of immigrants at their border, they should realize that this is but a symptom of larger problems: these people are fleeing crushing poverty and hardship, while at the same time being lured by the unsustainable “good life” promoted by Western culture. No tall fence would or should fix this – major changes on many fronts will be needed if we’re to provide all humanity with the basic necessities while avoiding global environmental collapse.
Among the many needed transformations, it might be okay to consider a world with fewer people – where we wouldn’t need to be so worried about cows belching, or the methane production of rice paddies. Again, the good news is that population reduction needn’t even be a goal – we simply need to focus on economic development and equitable wealth distribution, aimed to provide the world’s poor with the conditions that have already led to lower birthrates in the developed world.
The wealthy of the world are perhaps slowly coming to understand that spreading the wealth around benefits even themselves, creating stable societies, a healthier planet, and sustainable birthrates. We can argue about how this redistribution should be accomplished, but there should be no argument about the need.
And to those who worry about insufficient replacement rates in developed countries, I’d say, don’t. Our plan for a functioning society shouldn’t resemble a Ponzi scheme, where never-ending population growth is a requirement. Eldercare is a hard problem – I know, having helped both my parents at the end of their lives – but the solution isn’t an endlessly ballooning supply of underpaid young people. With some planning and effort, we could survive a population replacement rate of 100%, or even less. Would there be a shortage of cheap labor? Yes – and good! Maybe someday even dishwashers will be able to earn a living wage. There would be abundant wealth and technology to solve the problems posed by an aging population, if it wasn’t being spent on battleships and trips to Mars.
Raising a family is one of the most fulfilling of all human experiences, encompassing many of our deepest joys and pleasures; but one doesn’t necessarily need twelve children to experience this fulfillment. If someone truly wants a large family, more power to them; many people, though, find it sufficiently challenging to properly raise even two kids. The churches and governments of the world could stop obsessing over people’s reproductive lives, and start paying attention to the problems they’re actually in a position to solve – first and foremost being the prevalence of war and violence in the world. We can’t address our other pressing problems when our resources are consumed battling each other. Major changes and investments are going to be required to divert us from our present charted course, and if those changes aren’t made, Mother Nature herself may be forced to “cull the herd”.
I do apologize for being depressing. But humankind, having now seen what a global crisis looks like, still seems unable to see the need for thoughtful discussion and collective action – to understand that now is not the time for bickering. Difficult conversations need to be had, and battles of words might result – but these battles must be fought fairly. Nonviolent communication and conflict resolution are skills that can be taught and learned – skills that will ultimately determine the fate of humanity.
So here we are, all in the same little boat. If God left us with instructions to “be fruitful and multiply”, we long ago made him very happy in that regard. We now need to learn to be good stewards of the Earth – and to be our brothers’ keepers, and good Samaritans, and blessed peacemakers. All that stuff. If we really want to be doing God’s will, our work has just begun.
.
.
.
.
.