- Published on
Clear the Room and Save a Planet
- Author
-
-
- Name
- Posts
- Posts
-
Oh, go ahead. Clear the room and save the planet.
I’m talking about bringing up overpopulation every time there is a discussion about global warming, alternative energy, carbon emissions, extinction of species, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the ozone layer, acid rain, or the melting polar ice caps.
That’s right… “overpopulation.” Too many people.
And, trust me, it will clear the room. There is a reason why activists and politicians never bring it up, even though it’s the biggest “duh” on the planet.
I’m talking about bringing up overpopulation every time there is a discussion about global warming, alternative energy, carbon emissions, extinction of species, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the ozone layer, acid rain, or the melting polar ice caps.
That’s right… “overpopulation.” Too many people.
And, trust me, it will clear the room. There is a reason why activists and politicians never bring it up, even though it’s the biggest “duh” on the planet.
The subject was a popular, or at least controversial one about fifty years ago. Paul Ehrlich wrote a bestseller called The Population Bomb and introduced the concept of “zero population growth.” There was a huge national conversation. The type of conversation that Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring had kicked off just seven years earlier. Folks were doing the math, considering the consequences, and talking about policy changes and possible solutions.
And then, the conversation was dropped. For fifty years.
What happened? Well… For starts, not all of Ehrlich’s predictions came true. Death rates did not rise. India did not starve.
On the other hand, some of his predictions did come true. When the book was written, there were between three and four billion people in the world. In 2012, that figure reached seven billion, having nearly doubled.
Several voices criticized Ehrlich’s book. Biologist and politician Barry Commoner was one of them. He had a theory that social and technological development would lead to a natural decrease in both population growth and environmental damage. Needless to say he was wrong.
And then, the conversation was dropped. For fifty years.
What happened? Well… For starts, not all of Ehrlich’s predictions came true. Death rates did not rise. India did not starve.
On the other hand, some of his predictions did come true. When the book was written, there were between three and four billion people in the world. In 2012, that figure reached seven billion, having nearly doubled.
Several voices criticized Ehrlich’s book. Biologist and politician Barry Commoner was one of them. He had a theory that social and technological development would lead to a natural decrease in both population growth and environmental damage. Needless to say he was wrong.
But the silence prevails, even as the elephant outgrows the living room, filling it with poop and gaseous emissions. Why?
Because to talk about overpopulation is to talk about population control. And population control is an explosive subject. Where it has been mandated, there has been an astronomical rise in the aborting of female fetuses. The whole subject touches a deep nerve among ethnic and racial minorities and colonized people who have had to endure the horrors of involuntary sterilization, genocide, “ethnic cleansing,” and cultural genocide. It raises the specter of eugenics and social engineering. And then, of course, there are the religious arguments against birth control, abortion, and women’s autonomy.
Talk of population control also threatens the ruling elite… right down to their toes. To quote the words of Venezuelan sociologist Edgardo Lander:
"Capitalism is an unlimited growth system. There can be no such thing as a steady-state capitalism, or capitalism with negative growth.”
Endless breeding and doubling populations spell more consumers, or, as the economists would put it, “expanding markets.” And that means greater Gross National Product, more jobs, more investment capital, more prosperity. Who wants to put the kibosh on that?
But let me state the obvious: While human populations have doubled, planetary resources have not. While human waste products have doubled, places to store them have not. And, quoting Lander again, “Unlimited growth is not possible in a limited planet.” Capitalism, like any pyramid scheme, will run its course.
The reality is that burgeoning population growth is the cause of the environmental crisis. (Can’t wait to the read the comments on this blog.) Yes, poor distribution, mismanagement of resources, racism, colonialism, endless war, etc. etc. have not helped, but there are limits to what the planet can sustain. Some are saying we have already passed those limits.
Talk of population control also threatens the ruling elite… right down to their toes. To quote the words of Venezuelan sociologist Edgardo Lander:
"Capitalism is an unlimited growth system. There can be no such thing as a steady-state capitalism, or capitalism with negative growth.”
Endless breeding and doubling populations spell more consumers, or, as the economists would put it, “expanding markets.” And that means greater Gross National Product, more jobs, more investment capital, more prosperity. Who wants to put the kibosh on that?
But let me state the obvious: While human populations have doubled, planetary resources have not. While human waste products have doubled, places to store them have not. And, quoting Lander again, “Unlimited growth is not possible in a limited planet.” Capitalism, like any pyramid scheme, will run its course.
The reality is that burgeoning population growth is the cause of the environmental crisis. (Can’t wait to the read the comments on this blog.) Yes, poor distribution, mismanagement of resources, racism, colonialism, endless war, etc. etc. have not helped, but there are limits to what the planet can sustain. Some are saying we have already passed those limits.
So let’s get back to my original suggestion: Why not interject the issue of overpopulation into every discussion of the environmental crisis?
Um, because most folks don’t care to be branded racist, facist, childhating, misogynist, ignorant, colonialist, and anti-spiritual.
Fair enough, but let’s look at why we should take that risk anyway…
Because nature bats last. Because reality always wins. Because nothing gets to the root of the problem except getting to the root of the problem. And because the plants and the animals dying for our sins do not have a voice. And if they did, they would say, “It’s the overpopulation of one exceptionally short-sighted, avaricious and filthy species, stupid!”
The conversation will not be easy and the solutions are offensive. But let’s do it anyway. We can take it, but the planet can't.
Um, because most folks don’t care to be branded racist, facist, childhating, misogynist, ignorant, colonialist, and anti-spiritual.
Fair enough, but let’s look at why we should take that risk anyway…
Because nature bats last. Because reality always wins. Because nothing gets to the root of the problem except getting to the root of the problem. And because the plants and the animals dying for our sins do not have a voice. And if they did, they would say, “It’s the overpopulation of one exceptionally short-sighted, avaricious and filthy species, stupid!”
The conversation will not be easy and the solutions are offensive. But let’s do it anyway. We can take it, but the planet can't.
6 Comments
Thank you. When I have mentioned overpopulation in any conversation around environmental issues, no one has yet dared to agree. Gay straight and lesbian look at me like I want to kill Santa Claus. And quickly change the subject.
I so agree with you Carolyn. I also have issue with all the Lesbians rushing out to babymake. I feel strongly our role as Lesbians, as Female Homosexuals, is that we are one sector of the population devoted to other creative things than babymaking, introducing semen into Lesbian bodies to pro-create because your 'biological clock will run out'. When I first came out, I was taught to be proud that we are 'NonBreeders', both gay men and Lesbians felt PROUD of that status! Nowadays it's so the 'in' thing, and only adds to the problem. Adopt if you must, or bring your child along from your formerly hetero marriage, but don't feel you too must procreate! The pressure on MANY women is enormous. And there are real statistics showing when women get education and economic power as well as autonomy over their own bodies, birth control, abortion by choice, and yes, even Lesbianism expressed freely, they choose to have less or fewer children. Let's empower women economically and by education and include zero population growth as one of those NEEDED goals to stop the destruction and crowding for the limited resources of this one small planet!
When someone makes a comment about me throwing something away instead of recycling it, I just say "I didn't have kids. I'm part of the solution." And you're so right. No one thinks about over population anymore.
I mostly agree with this article and have long thought is was ridiculous to stop talking about overpopulation.There are too many people and we are destroying the habitat of every other living species and the idiocy of religious control of reproduction kills and harms women. Still, I keep hearing though the voice of one Sri Lankan woman saying "nobody ever talks about limiting the amount of cars one can have."
One thing you missed - people in the global south tend to have more children. And talking about population control often implies people who are having more children. While most pollution and consumption is in the global north
Outrageous climate prompting floods and backwoods fires, liquefying polar ice covers, contamination of the air, water and land … at times it can feel like our natural issues are huge to such an extent that we can't do anything about them. Yet, as is commonly said, there is no planet B. In the event that we need people in the future to in any case have a spot to live in, we should fire getting it together at this point. This requires settling on great way of life decisions, being aware of the effect of our carbon impression and supporting for developments that help save the earth.