The media finally have the message: People care about the environment. It’s nearly impossible to turn on a television channel—especially PBS—without seeing David Attenborough, Jane Goodall, Greta Thunberg, or Bill Gates, of all people, urging us to take care of wildlife, conserve natural resources, and reduce our carbon footprint. As a fervent environmentalist for many decades, of course I am delighted to see that viewers care about these issues and that research on possible fixes is proceeding.
Why, then,
am I hesitant to applaud this progress? It’s because I see scarcely any mention
of population as part of our environmental problems. In the 1960s the world population
was about 3 billion; today, about 8 billion. So much damage results from that growth: The
huge population easily transmits diseases such as covid-19. Supplies of water
are scarce in some areas, while the changing climate causes torrential rains in
other areas. We convert large areas of forest or wetlands to space for growing
coffee or other desirable foods. There is simply too little useable space for
everyone.
In the 1960s
population biologists such as Paul Ehrlich and Garrett Hardin began pointing
out the necessity of limiting population size. Many of us responded by limiting
the size of our families and joining Planned Parenthood. All over the world,
people realized the danger of overpopulation. China even instituted a draconian
“one child” program that led to forced
abortions and other undesirable results and was eventually discontinued. The
world population size that had grown 2% annually in the 1960s now grows at about
1%. That decrease is very encouraging, but 1% of 8 billion is still 80 million,
about ten times the size of New York City. Can the planet sustain adding ten New
Yorks a year? I think not.
Today,
however, the ubiquitous TV programs about nature and climate change seem almost
oblivious of how much population size affects the environment. Is it because
corporate sponsors discourage it? I don’t know the answer but am suspicious.
Some United
States economists actually warn that the country needs more babies. Presumably
this is to increase consumption of goods to stimulate the economy, and to
provide a larger pool of workers. That’s the dilemma: Stimulating the economy
depends partly on population growth, while helping the environment depends on
shrinking it. While a larger population may actually be desirable in some ways
for some countries, would it not make more sense to encourage more immigration
from crowded countries than to boost the number of births? Immigrants are
desperately trying to enter some countries to escape terrible conditions in
other places. Most are willing to work, to buy goods, to help the economy.
Currently,
anyone who encourages limiting population size is likely to be accused of
racism or “anti-natalism.” In recent years far-right politicians have taken
advantage of religious opposition to abortion to attack Planned Parenthood. The
women who began that group around 1900 as a way of helping poor immigrant women
control their lives are said to have favored genocide of Blacks. Margaret
Sanger, the main founder, was one of eleven children in an Irish family. She
personally experienced the sad results of women not being able to control their
reproduction. She is criticized greatly now as being a eugenicist, but her goal
of helping women voluntarily escape the burden of having too many children is
still laudable.
Planned
Parenthood and similar groups are attacked by people who oppose abortion.
However, the best way to avoid abortion is to provide contraception. Many women
in rural or poor areas of the country have no access to free contraception. As
a result they are faced with the terrible choice of having an abortion or
giving birth to an unwanted baby and adding to the population size. If women have
access to education and contraceptives, they become free to better control
their lives, to find jobs, to have children in the number and when they choose
to. Individuals and society both benefit. Bill and Melinda Gates have seen how
important population control is for Africa, and have invested in programs to
help women, but who will sound the alarm for America?
Calls for
social justice also complicate the overpopulation issue. One proposal for
lessening the wealth gap between rich and poor suggests giving each baby born
in the US $20,000. Invested over the years, that could help pay for college, a
starter home, and other advantages that wealthier people have. Unfortunately,
it might also encourage having more children.
Important as
population control is, there will always be opposition to it for a variety of
reasons. However, the need is overwhelming. Sooner or later, world population
size will fall. If it is not decreased by voluntary means, nature will
control it for us by delivering pandemics, storms, wildfires, lack of enough
food and water for everyone, and so on. We need
to act soon.
Copyright © April
12, 2021 by Carol Leth Stone (a.k.a.
RovinCrone)
