I
A
Strategy for a National and International Population Policy
By J. Anthony Cassils
This article was published in the January 2006 issue of
Proceedings, a periodical of the Canadian Association for the
Club of Rome
Foreword
The strategy proposed in this paper may interest readers for the
following reasons:
· It represents the development of some ideas first brought
to the attention of the members of CACOR in a paper, co-written
by the Author and Madeline Weld, called, Why Canada Needs a Population
Policy, which was published in a previous edition of Proceedings
a few years ago.
· The strategy has been honed by an open and participatory
Web-based process called Wiki set up by the Green Party of Canada
as an experiment in democratic and broad-based policy development.
The Author was asked to be the Team Leader for the development
of a population plank which received the support of the majority
of participants but not the 65% support required for consideration
for inclusion in The Green Party Platform. The population plank
is a public document in keeping with the open development process
that gave rise to it.
· The most encouraging aspect of this participatory process
that developed the population plank is that important and contentious
issues, such as, overpopulation and immigration, were dealt with
in a civil manner. It is essential that such issues be broadly
and publicly aired and not allowed to fester.
· The strategy paper is a modification of the population
plank with some additions and deletions and with recommendations
directed to the Government of Canada and to the Governments of
the Provinces and Territories.
This paper was enriched by valuable contributions from many, including:
Ted Mosquin, Ian Whyte, Mike Nickerson, Martin Collacott, Jon
Legg, and Madeline Weld. My sincere appreciation goes as well
to those who opposed certain aspects of the paper which was indirectly
revised and strengthened by their arguments.
Population: The Global Context
Nothing threatens the future of civilized societies as much as
overpopulation, and few problems have proven more difficult for
humans to address.
The human population of the Earth has increased from about five
million in 6,000 BCE (Ehrlich, 1968), to 1.5 billion in 1900,
to more than 6.4 billion in 2004, and the medium projection is
for it to rise to 9.1 billion by 2050 (UN, Department of Economic
and Social Affairs, World Population Prospects – The 2004
Revision). An increase of 2.7 billion over the next 45 years is
equivalent to the global population in 1955. The same Report gives
a high projection of 10.6 billion by 2050 and a low projection
of 7.7 billion depending on fertility. In the medium variant,
fertility declines from 2.6 children per woman today to slightly
over 2 children per woman in 2050. Fertility of 0.5 children per
woman above or 0.5 below that projected for the medium variant
provide the figures for the high and low population projections
for 2050. At the world level, continued population growth until
2050 is inevitable even if the decline of fertility accelerates.
However the lower projection of a population of 7.7 billion would
result in much less hardship and social injustice than the other
projections. This underscores the importance of making family
planning readily available worldwide. Meanwhile, some analysts
suggest that the UN Report pays insufficient attention to the
young age structure of the global population, calculating that
if the global fertility rate of two children per female had been
reached in the year 2000 (the estimated rate was 2.8 in that year),
and stabilized, the world population would peak at 12 billion
in about 70 years.
The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs has specified
which countries need assistance. Between 2005 and 2050, the population
of the fifty least developed countries is projected to more than
double, expanding from 0.8 billion to 1.7 billion. Growth in the
rest of the developing world is also projected to be considerable,
though less rapid, with its population rising from 4.5 billion
to 6.1 billion by 2050. In 2004, the global population increased
by about 76 million.
In the words of E. O. Wilson (2002): “The pattern of human
population growth in the 20th century was more bacterial than
primate.” The truth is that global population has overshot
sustainable carrying capacity and supports itself by drawing down
stores of natural resources leading to calamities, such as, the
imminent peaking of oil production, collapsing fisheries, the
loss of prime agricultural land to erosion and urbanization, and
serious shortages of fresh water. The UN World Water Development
Report (2003) projects that, at worst, as many as seven billion
people in sixty countries could face water scarcity by 2050. Even
under the most favourable projection for water, an estimated two
billion people in sixty countries will live water-scarce lives
by 2050. Meanwhile, humans are drawing down underground aquifers
and polluting fresh and marine waters at an accelerating rate.
Clearly, the consequences of population overshoot ensure that
for future generations, the Earth will not be able to sustain
anything like the current human population.
Since the 1960s, an increasing number of scientists have warned
of the dangers of overpopulation. In 1993, the Union of Concerned
Scientists published a document called “World Scientists’
Warning to Humanity” which states:
“Pressure resulting from unrestrained population growth puts
demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to
achieve a sustainable future.”
Unfortunately, in many countries, the well-founded warnings from
scientists of the dangers posed by overpopulation have not achieved
a sufficient change in public policy. Although by 2001, sixty-eight
percent of national governments reported that they had intervened
to modify fertility levels, forty-five percent wanted to lower
fertility levels while thirteen percent wanted to increase them,
reflecting the human ambivalence when confronted with the serious
issue of overpopulation (UN World Population Policies Report,
2003). In many developed countries where populations have stabilized,
there is still pressure to expand their populations by immigration.
These national population policies are focused on fertility and
not on assessing the long-term carrying capacity of the environment
to support existing numbers within each country.
Population: The Canadian Situation
Since Confederation, the Canadian population has grown very quickly.
It rose from 3,463,000 in 1867 to 11,654,000 in 1942, to 20,378,000
in 1967, and to 31,000,000 in 2001. Statistics Canada estimates
that the population will reach about 36,000,000 in 2025. However,
with the expected surge of environmental disasters and the concomitant
rise in the number of environmental and economic refugees and
the growth of human smuggling, the population may be much higher
within a generation or two. This represents a potential onslaught
of which the Government of Canada is aware, but for which it appears
to be very ill-prepared.
The largely unchallenged assumption is that Canada has no population
problem since it has the second largest land area of all countries
on Earth. These unpopulated Canadian land areas are generally
seen as “empty” spaces just waiting to be filled. These
assumptions are based on a false premise that the potential for
growth is equatable with the crude statistic of land area. The
reality is that much of the land is barren and incapable of supporting
a large population. Furthermore, whatever population lived in
these barren areas would leave a large “ecological footprint.”
Most food would have to be shipped in, requiring both land surface
for agriculture elsewhere and large amounts of energy for transportation
and space heating. It is a reflection of our anthropocentric (i.e.
centered on the human species to the exclusion of all other forms
of life) bias to consider all people-free areas as “empty”
when, in fact, they contain ecosystems that support other species
and contribute to the ecological balance of the web of life on
the planet.
The majority of Canadians, however, accept the myth over the
reality. Despite evidence to the contrary - the collapse of the
cod fishery, the crises in the salmon fisheries, the ever-lengthening
list of endangered species, national parks under siege, and the
continuing assault on the boreal forest - most continue to assume
that theirs is a land of almost limitless resources. The myth
is in fact an integral part of Canadian national pride.
The more habitable part of Canada, the most southerly strip near
the American border that is home to most Canadians, is already
densely populated. Toronto and Vancouver are experiencing serious
problems associated with their rapid, unplanned growth, yet Canada
continues to actively seek large numbers of immigrants who gravitate
towards these regions. Anyone using the Lions gate Bridge in Vancouver,
highway 401 in southern Ontario, or emergency services at hospitals
across the country knows that we do not lack people.
The policy of the Liberal Party of Canada calls for immigration
at a rate of one percent annually of the Canadian population in
response to the powerful proponents of continual economic expansion.
This target would increase immigration by about one-third over
current levels. A plan to increase the population of Canada by
at least one percent a year is a recipe for ecological calamity.
There is a common misconception that the Canadian population is
now shrinking without immigration. While the fertility rate has
been below replacement for some years, the built-in momentum of
the population (age structure) is such that births are expected
to exceed deaths in Canada for about the next fifteen years (Statistics
Canada).
Population as Taboo
Why is this issue of overpopulation being addressed so inadequately?
It is a contentious topic. The idea of stabilizing and reducing
human population goes against the basic instinct of all life forms
to expand into any given opportunity. Unfortunately, such expansions
usually continue until they deplete the food supply leading to
a rapid decline of population. For thousands of years, we humans
have viewed ourselves as struggling for survival against a hostile
natural world and consequently many traditional values and institutions
favour the growth of human numbers. Some religious leaders support
population growth by opposing birth control and limits to migration.
Real estate developers want more people because they require more
housing, more retail outlets, and more office space causing real
estate prices to rise. Banks like rising real estate prices because
it makes their mortgage business more secure. Most businesses
prefer a growing population because it increases the number of
consumers and drives down wages. Governments support an expanding
population for it spreads the burden of public debt, and often
they support lax immigration laws with the hope of gaining the
support of recent immigrants. Meanwhile, some well-intentioned
but misinformed people overlook overpopulation and insist on the
redistribution of wealth as the global panacea.
These groups have a vested interest in continual economic expansion
and population growth. They manipulate politicians by bloc voting
and intimidate dissenters in the public and the media placing
their own narrow interests before the future well-being of humanity
and of all life.
Proponents of population growth raise the specter of an ageing
population arguing that an expanding workforce is necessary to
cover the future costs of pensions. This overlooks the fact that
there are other ways of dealing with this issue. Sweden and other
Scandinavian countries are managing ageing populations without
increasing immigration by providing, for example, incentives to
encourage older and younger people to participate in the workforce.
It is self evident that an increase of the median age of a population
is an essential stage in the process of population reduction.
Worldwide, public policy must respond fully to the information
from scientists about the state of the global environment and
the rapid depletion of natural resources upon which all societies
depend. Canada needs vital leaders to meet the demands of the
age of ecology, not myopic managers who act like it is “business
as usual” while paying lip service to the notion of sustainability
and to other environmental issues. Old-line thinking supports
policies pertaining to manufacturing, fisheries, forestry, agriculture,
and energy that continue to degrade the productivity and integrity
of Earth’s ecosystems.
In this global and national context, the following statement
of the issue and positions/recommendations are set out for consideration
by the Government of Canada and by the Governments of the Provinces
and Territories, all of which need to develop population policies.
Issue, Positions/Recommendations, and Arguments
Issue
What is the optimal sustainable level of human population for
Canada taking into consideration the following factors: the quality
of life to which most Canadians aspire; the carrying capacity
of the web of life; the essential needs of biodiversity; the requirement
for a continual flow of vital natural resources; the preservation
of substantial wilderness areas; and, the global context in which
all Canadians live?
The optimal number of people does not mean the maximum number
of people since the maximum does not leave a margin of safety
to provide for unexpected disasters. Besides, we humans have an
ethical obligation to preserve ecosystems needed by other species
and a moral obligation to prevent the degradation of societies
that inevitably results when population levels are out of balance
with the productivity of lands and waters.
The challenge for the twenty-first century will be for humans
to live within carrying capacity while following the precautionary
principle which provides guidance that when an activity or activities
raise threats of serious harm to human health or to the environment,
precautionary measures should be taken even if some relationships
of cause and effect are not fully established scientifically.
Position/Recommendation 1
The Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces
and Territories need to develop a population policy that links
human numbers in Canada to the long-term carrying capacity of
Canadian lands and boundary waters taking into consideration the
needs of other species and the biodiversity required for a healthy
ecosphere. A similar initiative should be taken by every other
country in the world. Although it is a worthwhile goal, an international
accord is not required prior to taking national action on this
serious issue.
“Carrying capacity” is defined as the human population
that can be supported in a given territory, in a specified lifestyle
(normally the one to which people can reasonably aspire), without
degrading their physical, ecological and social environment, and
without imposing wastes on the environment beyond what can be
absorbed without damage. Studies of carrying capacity should include
an assessment of the global ecological footprint of each country
and the extent to which each country is affected by the ecological
footprints of others. The “ecological footprint” of
a country is the total area of land and water ecosystems needed,
both inside and outside its own territory, to produce the renewable
natural resources its population consumes and to assimilate the
wastes its population produces. The undertaking of these calculations
should involve extensive public consultations in an open democratic
process.
Argument
An in-depth knowledge and measurement of carrying capacity and
interdependence are prerequisites for fully understanding the
relationships of humanity within the web of life. Without this
knowledge and the political will to use it, we cannot make appropriate
decisions. The science of ecology has informed human beings that
they are in relationship not only with members of their own species
but with all life, and that the health of the human population
depends on the well-being of the Earth’s living systems that
support life. Therefore, human beings will assure their own future
by doing their best to nurture all life. These insights from ecology
have yet to permeate the general public perception. It is unrealistic
and dangerous to subject the finite Earth to political policies
that operate on the assumption that the growth of the economy
and of the human population can continue indefinitely. Following
the concept of “thinking globally and acting locally,”
every country has an obligation to develop a population policy
that looks at human numbers in the context of the natural environment
that supports them.
Canadians are vulnerable for they have expanded and prospered
by using and selling their natural resources at an accelerating
pace. Many of these are not renewable, and when supplies of natural
resources near exhaustion, the well-being of the population of
Canada may decline rapidly. Each country has a responsibility
to reduce population and consumption to prevent the chaos that
results when complex systems break down. An acceptable response
would be to shrink our way to prosperity by reducing population
faster than the size of the economy.
Meanwhile, Canada should continue to strive to meet international
obligations as a signatory to agreements such as the Geneva Convention
on Refugees, the Kyoto Accord, the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species, and The Migratory Birds Convention,
while realizing that the goals of such conventions are endangered
by overpopulation and environmental deterioration. In an increasingly
overcrowded and desperate world, there will be ever fewer places
of refuge.
Most people overlook the inevitability of the human encounter
with global environmental limits. The media has done little to
help people understand the "whole system” reality of
the population/environmental crisis. The right-wing media does
not begin to acknowledge that the economy is a dependent subsidiary
of the environment; they believe that the resources of the planet
are infinite and the loss of a few million species is of no great
concern. The left-wing media embraces the “it’s not
population, it’s consumption” ideology, as if the two
were not inextricably linked. From the perspective of many on
the left, the resource pie is big enough for any number of people
provided these people divide it into equal pieces. These positions
reflect insufficient understanding of biological capacities and
human nature.
To date, no Canadian government has ever adopted a population
policy. This is surprising since the Canadian population has increased
six fold since 1900 causing the degradation of fisheries, forests,
and agricultural soils as well as other environmental deterioration.
One could say that the issue has been “addressed” piecemeal
and inadequately by policies on subjects such as immigration,
refugees, child credits, and abortion. A more comprehensive and
ecologically-based approach is essential to address the issue
of population.
Position/Recommendation 2
The Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces
and Territories should provide the strong political leadership
needed to create a comprehensive population policy for Canada.
Argument
The development of a population policy requires strong leadership
with the capacity to bridge many jurisdictions and interest groups
in Canada. Most politicians avoid the issue of population growth
because it opens them to criticism from a wide range of interest
groups probably damaging rather than helping their careers. However,
from time to time, issues arise of such overwhelming importance
to the future of humankind that they require an assertive rather
than a reactive form of leadership. They demand anticipation and
preventive actions, since a cure may not be possible if the stability
of the Earth’s ecosphere is undermined. The threat posed
by the overshoot of human numbers to the health of the Earth’s
web of life and to the well-being of civilized societies is such
an issue.
Position/Recommendation 3
The Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces
and Territories should endorse the development of reliable data
on the long-term carrying capacity of Canada to provide an objective
basis for an ecologically secure and socially just population
policy.
Argument
As soon as Canadians try to answer the question posed by the
issue, they will realize that they need much better information
on which to base their decisions. They should be prepared to make
decisions based on the weight-of-evidence approach, acting on
the preponderance of evidence rather than waiting for the last
bit of data.
Clearly, Canada needs extensive and reliable data on the condition
of the web of life on Canadian lands and in Canadian boundary
waters to ascertain the appropriate levels of human population
and economic activity. The good news is that there is a great
deal of environmental information in Canada; unfortunately, it
is dispersed in dozens of databases across the country. Many of
these databases are not designed to relate easily to one another,
creating barriers relating to cost, function and jurisdiction.
Gaps exist. In some cases, there is insufficient data to show
the present effect of current management practices on natural
resources. For example, in forestry, Canadians must often extrapolate
from non-Canadian information regarding the effects of harvesting
on water quality, wildlife populations, aesthetics, fisheries,
and on the inability of forests to regenerate themselves after
successive harvests. (Cassils, J. Anthony. Linking Land Titles/Registry
Systems in Canada to Land-Related Environmental Information. Unedited
Working Paper for Discussion. National Round Table on the Environment
and the Economy. April, 1995.)
The Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces
and Territories should actively promote the development of the
branch of ecology that looks at the carrying capacity of the natural
environment and at the ecological footprints of various communities,
cities and countries. Too much damage has already been done and
restoration to former levels of productivity should now be a priority.
In determining the carrying capacity of Canada, one should attempt
also to take into account the interdependency of Canada with the
rest of the world. Canada helps others to live by selling its
natural resources and manufactured goods, and is helped in turn
by other countries that supply Canada with a broad range of products.
Canadians need to become more aware of the size of their collective
global ecological footprint and understand how Canada is affected
by the ecological footprints of others, for example the northern
parts of Canada have been seriously affected by the tendency of
global air pollution to coalesce in the Polar Regions.
Canada should place the highest priority on developing reliable
data on the use, and trends in the use, of resources to ensure
that human demands on the web of life remain safely within the
bounds of sustainability. Without such information, the state
of health of the web of life will be left to the uninformed demands
of corporate, religious, political, and environmental interests.
Furthermore, good ecological data will give rise to a profound
transformation of the way people value the environment. It will
change the way leaders think and make decisions, and give birth
to new institutions.
Position/Recommendation 4
The Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces
and Territories should undertake an initiative to educate Canadians
about the acute dangers of overpopulation and to build public
participation and support for a population policy.
Argument
Faced with such a complex issue, it is essential to take time
to educate and engage the public and to draw upon their insights
in formulating a population policy.
An unbiased, accessible process of consultation would help to
develop consensus in an open, participatory process. The end-product
would be a statement of goals, assumptions and principles for
a population policy. In the course of doing this task, the participants
in the consultation process would draw upon the growing database
of reliable environmental information and identify gaps. The process
should be designed so that the attainment of a more comprehensive
database and the production of the statement of goals, assumptions
and principles coincide to give legislators a solid foundation
for a population policy.
Position/Recommendation 5
The Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces
and Territories should advocate steps to slow the growth of population
in Canada pending the development of the information base on carrying
capacity and the completion of public consultations, and undertake
measures to increase international aid to those overpopulated
countries that have or are willing to have policies to lower fertility
but need assistance to develop and implement such policies.
Argument
As Canada will have a very slow natural population growth rate
without immigration for about the next fifteen years (Statistics
Canada), one measure to slow population growth would be to bring
immigration to levels in place prior to 1989. Between 1867 and
1989, Canada adjusted its intake of immigrants according to its
ability to absorb them and to provide suitable employment.
In 1989, the Mulroney government, in an unsuccessful attempt
to win the support of recent immigrants in swing urban ridings
from the Liberals, set an informal target to increase the population
of Canada by 1 percent annually, largely from immigration, regardless
of the economic or environmental conditions in Canada. Since 1990,
recent immigrants have been doing substantially less well than
the average Canadian, when a generation or two before, they did
considerably better. This may suggest that Canada has reached
its carrying capacity. For as long as an ecological surplus exists,
additional population seems to increase wealth, but when carrying
capacity has been exceeded, added population causes a rise in
poverty levels (William Catton). The current level of migration
to Canada as a percentage of population exceeds that of all other
developed nations.
A policy to maintain high levels of immigration could be contrary
to the wishes of many Canadians who are beginning to stabilize
the Canadian population by having smaller families. The conventional
economic explanation for smaller families is that Canadians want
to avoid the expense of having large families and believe that
too many children would interfere with their lifestyles. Ecologists
have another perspective. As with other mammalian species, it
may be that the overcrowding and increasing scarcity, encountered
by Canadians as the high cost of living and a lower quality of
life, intensify the competition for survival and lower the fertility
rate. All levels of government in Canada need to act on the understanding
that without healthy, natural systems to support and buffer industrial,
urban, and agricultural activities there can be no healthy economy
or high quality of life. (Eugene Odum)
In light of these facts, Canada should approach all forms of
population growth with care pending the completion of a thorough
assessment of carrying capacity. No other measures are proposed
to lower population growth at this time. However a woman should
retain the right to have a lawful abortion.
Canadian policy makers need to develop a deeper appreciation
of the impact of the long-term exponential growth of human population
on the carrying capacity of ecosystems in Canada. Often, they
compare Canada with other countries, many of which are overpopulated
and showing signs of severe ecological, social, and political
stress. Then, they leap to the wrong conclusion that Canada has
too few people.
Human numbers do not tell the whole story. The range of human
activities and the types of technologies used influence the impact
on the web of life. Canadians demand energy- and technology-intensive
lifestyles involving activities that are high-cost, financially
and environmentally. Some of this consumption may be inevitable
- a large cold country will require much energy for transportation
and heating - but this does not mitigate its impact.
It is popular in the current intellectual climate to pretend
that all would be well if only those in the developed regions
would consume less, an initiative they would fiercely resist.
However, this ignores the fact that it is primarily population
growth and its concomitant deforestation, erosion, and desertification
that, in the poorer countries, destroys the ecological underpinnings
of their subsistence way of life. This unfortunate situation is
exacerbated by the growing international demand for natural resources.
Furthermore, the disparity in perceived consumption is based in
part on differences in per capita incomes. A person earning thirty
thousand dollars a year in Toronto would appear at first glance
to have as much as fifty times the purchasing power of a person
in one of the poorest countries. However, it is expensive to live
in Canada. A person earning an income of thirty thousand dollars
in Toronto does not have much discretionary spending after paying
for taxes, shelter, heating, food, and transportation. Meanwhile
a person in a poorer country may have a more benign climate, be
able to build their own shelter, and grow two or three crops for
food per year. Details of subsistence ways of life will likely
not be recorded in poorer countries and much energy may be consumed
and pollution produced by, for example, slash and burn agriculture.
Nevertheless, Canadians must make every effort to reduce the
pollution caused by their consumption and activities. They should
try also to consume considerably less, but it has been a political
truism that no government in a democracy has been elected based
on a platform advocating a reduction of consumption. The most
acceptable first step is to encourage greater efficiency in the
use of natural resources by applying financial incentives with
the added benefit that this would urge Canadian companies to move
into the forefront in the development of green technologies. Germany
provides an excellent example of this shift.
Canada needs to seize the initiative and show that it is serious
about taking measures at home to help restore the health of the
ecosphere by stabilizing and reducing population and consumption
if it wishes its efforts to resolve global overpopulation to be
taken seriously by other countries. This does not imply in any
way that Canadians are cutting themselves off from the rest of
the world. As Canada stabilizes and reduces its population, it
will provide a useful example that will inspire other countries
to adopt similar goals, even though conditions vary considerably
from one country to another. In any event, Canada should increase
substantially its aid to those countries which need help to develop
population policies to bring their respective populations into
alignment with carrying capacity.
AN EFFECTIVE GLOBAL APPROACH TO OVERPOPULATION
The international community must come to an unequivocal agreement
that a significant reduction of human population is a desirable
goal. The Cairo Conference in 1994 was a small tentative step
that, unfortunately, failed to address this challenge. International
agreements can take many years to achieve given the complexity
of often-conflicting national interests at the global level, but,
thankfully, individual countries do not need to wait for an international
accord before taking action. National strategies to encourage
falling birth rates have been a factor in improving human well-being
in South Korea, Thailand, and China among others. Falling birth
rates provide what is called a “demographic dividend”
when having fewer dependent children allows more adults to participate
in the workforce, increasing productivity and prosperity.
All governments should calculate the carrying capacity of their
respective countries. In so doing, they should to take into consideration
not only human needs, but also the needs of other species.
More prosperous countries should make every effort to improve
the education for women and children in the poorest countries
and to supply them with all suitable means of contraception.
If the citizens of countries in the lead in reducing their populations
are to benefit from their foresight and feel secure, they must
not be invaded by illegal migration or military action. Nor should
they give in to the advocates of growth within their respective
countries by allowing massive immigration. Some political leaders
consider that a large population is an indicator of political,
economic, and potentially, military significance. Permitting the
continual outflow from overpopulated regions rewards those who
multiply without fully understanding the consequences and perpetuates
the myth that unlimited growth is possible. Countries that allow
their populations to rise beyond carrying capacity must face the
results of their actions or inaction as this will make evident
to them very rapidly the need to change their habits and cultures.
Meanwhile, they should receive all the assistance required to
help them make a quick transition to lower fertility levels. There
is a huge unmet need for family planning. Ultimately, the various
peoples of the world will have to assume the responsibility to
restore their respective regions into lands of hope. In an overcrowded
world, mass migration is no longer a reasonable option to address
overpopulation.
As many old institutions and value systems seem unable to respond
to the challenge of new ecological insights, all governments should
show real leadership by designing institutions that can help humanity
shrink its way to sustainable prosperity. We need institutions
that can thrive as the global population and economy shrink. For
example, the concept of the corporation was conceived in the 17th
century when perpetual economic growth was considered possible.
In the twenty-first century, the corporate model clearly needs
to be revised substantially or to be replaced.
The advantages of this proposed approach to overpopulation are
as follows: it targets those countries that have the highest fertility;
it addresses directly and immediately the need for female education
and the huge unmet need for family planning; and, it would set
in place incentives to encourage all countries to think globally
and act locally to begin to resolve the critical issue of human
overpopulation.
The good news is that populations that grow exponentially can
shrink exponentially. A few generations of below replacement fertility
could reduce the global population to sustainable levels. Below
replacement fertility is already a reality in fifty-one countries
including China. This trend should be celebrated. Instead the
purveyors of perpetual growth bemoan lower fertility rates as
they rush to lay waste to what remains of the living Earth.
CONCLUSIONS
The greatest challenge faced by humanity is to come to terms
with the huge ecological burdens caused by human numbers and their
demands.
In many cultures, including the globally predominant consumer
culture, there is a bias that recognizes ethics only in terms
of human relationships but not in terms of the human impact on
other forms of life, regardless of the fact that they make human
life possible. Consequently, human numbers and demands continue
to grow and fuel the deterioration of the web of life on Earth.
We humans must develop a greener sense of ethics that involves
confronting our instinctive expansionist drives and our disregard
for non-human forms of life. We need ecocentric ethics which are
grounded in awareness of our place in nature. We need to recognize
that the Earth is the only home we have.
Huge benefits would result from a reduction of population and
of human demands on the living Earth. Humanity can choose to have
more people and lower living standards or fewer people and a higher
quality of life in a healthier ecosphere. Excessive human numbers
drive down average income and quality of life and drive up the
cost of the necessities of life. This is already causing widespread
hardship and suffering to hundreds of millions. The debasement
of the value of human life, while not publicly acknowledged, is
occurring in many countries. If humans continue to overstep the
mark, then nature will cull us with great hardship. Actions taken
now to lower fertility can prevent much grief and social injustice.
Governments have paid lip-service to some environmental issues,
but they have failed to address comprehensively the problem of
rapid environmental deterioration. Nor have they come to terms
with the underlying human preference for the growth of human numbers,
of consumption per capita, and of the economy. While there is
an urgent need to bring humanity into a sustainable alignment
with the rest of the ecosphere, humans have a tendency to fight
amongst themselves for relative advantage instead of addressing
this overriding issue. Important long-term issues receive little
attention from the average person who is pre-occupied with day-to-day
affairs. However, we cannot afford such a haphazard approach to
problem-solving given the gravity of the situation. Civilization
is at risk.
In troubled times we need leaders, not managers for business-as–usual.
In recent decades, governments have relied on economic growth
to provide the revenues to win public support. These times of
relative abundance have given rise to an approach to governing
that caters to special interests, segment by segment, while overlooking
the broader public good. The human bias for growth has overburdened
the living Earth and many life forms that support human life but
do not have a voice. We humans need to recognize that we are in
relationship not only with other members of our own species, but
with all life forms. We have a duty to speak for the voiceless
as well as for ourselves. As the current human expansion threatens
to surpass other major extinctions caused by the formation of
the unified continent of Pangea and by the Earth’s collision
with a large meteorite, this is no time for complacency. We must
vigorously address issues like overpopulation that some in politics
consider to be “dangerous.” Otherwise, these issues
will fester until they emerge as monstrous calamities that will
shred the fabric of the living Earth.
This raises an important question about human nature. While we
humans may have more consciousness than other life forms, collectively,
we may not have enough to counteract the basic genetic impulses
to expand our numbers and demands as long as we are able, even
though we understand that we may undermine the living Earth that
sustains all life. Our species will be defined by its response
to this issue. Do we humans have the will and the understanding
to act? If not, it may be that we are little more than rabbits
with attitude.
Back
to Top
Send
this page to a friend!
