POPULATION – Dare I Bring it Up?
Denver
OK, now I’m going to really get myself in trouble. Bad enough, I was messing around in your garage when I wrote about gasoline-powered vehicles a couple of posts back. But now, I’m opening the door to your bedroom which is sure to piss off some of you.
I’m talking here about the elephant in the room when it comes to the climate crisis – POPULATION. A lot of environmental groups like the Sierra Club won’t touch it. Too sensitive a topic – they don’t want to alienate potential donors. I’m not looking for donations or to make friends (although it’s really nice to have the latter), so I’m not going to hold back.
Source: www.bitlanders.com
So, here we go – the world simply has too many people to be sustainable and the situation is getting worse. If we only had maybe 4 billion people on the planet instead of the 8 billion we have now, we wouldn’t have to be nearly as concerned about greenhouse gas emissions. Fifty years ago when the world’s population was half what it is today, there was no climate crisis, though admittedly per capita fossil fuel use has increased dramatically since then, adding to the problem. And yes, the population growth rate has been declining over the past few years with some countries in Europe and East Asia actually losing population.
Projections indicate
that the world’s population will start to slowly decline in about 60 years
after reaching about 10.5 billion.
That’s good news in the long run but, in terms of the climate crisis, it
is essential to accelerate the start of that decline as soon as possible. This would be especially helpful in developed
countries like the United States where our greenhouse gas emissions per person are
far greater than in poor countries like India or Nigeria.
So what can we do as individuals to start bringing down human population numbers? Many of you readers are already past child-bearing age and I don’t want to imply any criticism for the children you may have brought into the world five or fifty years ago. No, I want to focus on the decisions of young people today as to whether or not to have children and how many.
I think it’s really important to change the messages we give our children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and young friends. I don’t think coercion is necessary. Younger people are already having fewer children and delaying the age at which they do have them. We should encourage this trend and stop pressuring them to procreate. When I was young, our parents and other adults acted like it was a given that we would have children. And when I was married for 12 years back in the 1970s and early 80s, my spouse and I received pressure from family, friends, and society’s not-so-subtle messages that we should be fruitful and multiply (we successfully resisted). Thankfully, times have changed and I think the following are some messages we should be passing along now to young people:
“You’re not sure whether you want to have kids? Well, don’t do it unless you change your mind in the future. There are many ways to have a meaningful life. Having children is one of them but keep looking at what is the best option for you.”
“You want to have kids? Fine, I would encourage you to have one when you feel you are emotionally and financially ready. If you then decide you want to have more than one child, consider adoption. There are many unwanted children in the world who need families. Think of what a great contribution you would make to the world and to that child or children by adopting.”
I know what some will
say about my one-child recommendation:
“Only children are lonely and selfish”.
I can speak to this personally as an only child. Yes, I was lonely sometimes but I sure
learned to be self-sufficient and able to entertain myself. As for being selfish, I’ll admit to
that. But I don’t think it was from a
lack of siblings. Until I started
kindergarten at age 4, I was never around other children so never learned to
share my toys and interact with other kids.
By 4, it was too late. It’s unfortunate that I wasn’t exposed to other
children at day care or nursery school from maybe age 1. In the late 1940s, that opportunity was not
available in Cresson, Pennsylvania, the small Appalachian town where I lived as
a little child.
How do we convince people to have only one child when their biological urges push them to have as many as possible? Funny how those urges seem to recede as men and women become better educated, have more opportunities for rewarding careers outside the home, and are able to learn as a child that life presents them with many good options. Freud said that “Biology is destiny” but maybe that’s just so much B.S. like a lot of the other things he said.
Along with changing our attitudes about “mandatory” child-bearing, we need to advocate for and promote sex education in schools and easy availability of birth control. And we certainly have to encourage our children and grandchildren to talk with their children about sexuality and birth control to eliminate unplanned and unwanted pregnancies to the extent possible.
I think we should encourage and celebrate people who have no children or only one child. Having no kids or only one are equally valid options in my opinion because were everyone to have only one, population would decrease over time but we would still have younger, albeit smaller, generations to replace ours.
Such ideas are total heresy to real estate developers and all the other industries that depend on continuous population growth to guarantee their big profits. And many freak out that there won’t be enough people in succeeding generations to fund Social Security and Medicare for the elderly. I have an answer for that – immigration. And I mean controlled immigration, not this haphazard situation of people sneaking across borders or overstaying visas.
Now I know some Americans have a problem with immigration because many of these people will be black or brown and not Christians. To them I say, “so what”. They worry that non-white, non-Christian immigrants will erode American values? Sounds to me like what Americans of northern European heritage said 150 years ago when Irish, Italians, Poles, Greeks, etc. swarmed into Ellis Island. This is a nation of immigrants. We absorbed people who were different into our melting pot back then and we can do it now. The important thing is for us native-born Americans to welcome them and help them and their children fit in as well as get good jobs and education.
Enough about immigration. The real issue is doing what we can to reduce
our planet’s human population which has accelerated the climate crisis, the
current high rate of species extinctions, and all manner of societal ills
resulting from increasing competition for scarce resources. Human population growth is a no-win pyramid
scheme that has to be brought to an end.
We can figure out how to address the challenges along the way. And maybe those real estate developers need
to find more socially-useful professions.
Since China is going to try to take back Taiwan before this decade ends, and Taiwan has friends, it kinda looks like the potential population problem may come to an end. But otherwise, my daughter has 4 kids and my son none. But he is the last male with his last name for two sides of the family. So we kinda need him to step up here pretty soon and do something to keep the name going.
ReplyDeleteWho is this Bruce [insult]? He missed the whole point!
DeleteIt’s not just women of child bearing age who need to be thoughtful. Men in their eighties - like DeNiro - are impregnating women. Men can be very attached to their manhood and refuse vasectomies and neutering of their male pets!
I received the above anonymous comment as an email from a phone number so don't know who wrote it. I took out an insulting word and added [insult]. I'd really like to avoid insults and other personal attacks in this blog. Otherwise, it becomes full of mud-slinging and degenerates to the level of what passes for intelligent discourse on Twitter (X), Facebook, and NextDoor.
DeleteWill, Excellent piece of writing!
ReplyDeleteIt seems that every problem of Earth can be traced back to the human population overexplosion. Paul Ehrlich had it right in his 1968 book, The Population Bomb.
ReplyDeleteKym, It's interesting that you should mention Paul Ehrlich and THE POPULATION BOMB. In 1988-89, I worked for a few months in Washington, DC and attended a lecture by Ehrlich at the World Resources Institute. After the lecture, I asked Ehrlich what he would say to people like me who had forgone parenthood in part because of out-of-control human population growth. I was expecting a supportive reply but instead received a wishy-washy, almost dismissive, answer. I suppose he didn't want to offend the parents in his audience.
DeleteWell said, Will. I've read all your blogs; this is the best of them, as it is the most critically important and urgent. Our world is becoming unlivable because increasing numbers of people are converting increasing amounts of former wild lands into developments, and using increasing amounts of fossil fuels. Your ideas are right on. I especially like encouraging and celebrating people who have only one or no children. We need to make birth control and abortion, readily available and free, all over the world, along with sex education and education about possible careers.
ReplyDeleteAnd to Bruce, above, how will China taking back Taiwan solve the population problem? Wars have historically increased the population.
Let's face it, people are going to keep reproducing -- perhaps the strongest biological drive next to food and water. (sex is fun -- part of the problem!) So I really don't have a solution to offer. Focusing on the US, it's terrifying that the country's population has more than doubled in my little lifetime! And zeroing in on Colorado, it was a far mellower place when I first moved here in 1969 with about half the population. I can say I've "helped" by not fathering any children, although now in my old age I sort of feel that I "missed out" on not having one. (A bit late in the game now.) And it seems you contradict yourself by saying that current residents should limit their fecundity -- and then turn around and say we need immigration. It must be STRICTLY limited to those with education and needed skills. The days of America as a dumping ground for the world's excess population are LONG past, despite what that maudlin doggerel poem nailed to the Statue of Liberty says. "Progressives" prattle on about "sustainability" while at the same time many of them are for more-or-less open borders. Are they really THAT stupid? You sure can't have both.
ReplyDeleteBob, I understand that it sounds like I'm contradicting myself by calling for people to have fewer children but advocating for immigration. Let me clarify: I am advocating for limited immigration to specifically fill jobs that are vacant because of too few American applicants. This shortage may be more of a problem in the future if Americans have fewer children. Otherwise, immigration is a complicated issue that goes beyond the scope of a blog on the Climate Crisis.
DeleteGood thoughts, Will, and I like the idea of giving a gentle nudge to young people. The sex drive is universal, but the drive to procreate may be more cultural than we think! BTW, did you know that sperm counts among human males have declined 50% worldwide, even on islands with very low pollution? What a kind and gentle way for Mother Nature to rid herself of excess burdens on her!https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/18/health/sperm-counts-decline-debate/index.html#:~:text=Over%20the%20past%2050%20years,important%20implications%20for%20human%20reproduction.
ReplyDeleteSomeone made a comment that the very best thing people can do to alleviate population pressure on the lands required by flora and fauna is to cheapen energy. The more energy, the cheaper, poor people will not be forced to ravage the land and the seas in order to survive. Lessen poverty and so many other problems get manageable or even resolved. Unfortunately, the environmental Left in so many countries in the US and in Europe are following precisely the wrong policies of making energy more expensive rather than less. Such green policies will surely devastate the planet.
ReplyDeleteBarbara
Lakewood, Colorado
Barbara, I'd be interested in the source of that comment. I don't quite get the logic. Sure, reducing poverty is a laudable goal, but I'd like to see some data that show how cheaper energy reduces population pressure. Of course, renewable energy is becoming cheaper than energy from fossil fuels and that will potentially lessen poverty.
DeleteGreat piece, Will, and on such an important topic. Speaking of elephants, one thing that can help control population in this country is to keep Republicans out of government since they oppose abortion and even birth control. However, we're not doing too badly here. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "US population growth is generally projected to slow between 2023 and 2053, averaging 0.3 percent per year over that period. That growth will be increasingly driven by immigration as fertility rates remain below the rate that would be required for a generation to exactly replace itself in the absence of immigration." China's population is declining too, projected to drop below 1 billion by 2080 and below 800 million by 2100. India and the African nations are where the largest increases will be, and it's great that Biden's strong engagement with those countries could conceivably have an impact on their policies if future administrations continue in this vein.
ReplyDeleteThere is indeed an elephant in the room that has long been ignored. I don't want to upset any Catholic sensitivities, but most religions encourage spreading one's seed and discourage birth control. All religions including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and many smaller or tribal religions all encourage increasing their populations, so blame God! The population explosion has been an issue ever since I can remember, but the truth is that poorer, less educated people have larger families, which is often their response to higher mortality and biological survival. But they pollute less than the smug comfortable classes with their falling populations, 4x4's and air-conditioning, and who continue to propagate an unsustainable consumer culture that has spread around the planet. Polluting factories are often outsourced to developing countries - your American iPhone is made in China, just like our solar panels are. Is the problem that we fornicate too much? Or is the problem unmitigated greed? Either way, we're screwed - elephants too.
ReplyDeleteWell done for raising awareness and debate!
Hugh
Dublin, IRELAND
The “climate crisis” … what a politically stupid term. Climate is and has always been changing. It’s the main reason all the glaciers that covered Ohio melted. Very few dinosaurs were driving gas guzzling cars.
ReplyDeleteLet’s just start with a small area (for instance the Gulf Coast) and change the climate so that we don’t have hurricanes.
Or pour cement in all the features in Yellowstone that emit tons of CO2.
The “Climate Crisis” is not as bad as the “politician crisis” that gave us WW I and WW II.
Could it be the world is aging? Could it be that change is inevitable?
The elephant in the room is the power of the media, which tries to instill panic in the ignorant. Also the increasing number of “ignorant”.
If you notice the major regional weather reports always include the comment that “10 million” people will be subject to the 100+ degree temperatures this week. Rather than have 10 million people die of the “heat” tell them to go inside and run the crap out of their A/C units.
Brent
Southwestern Louisiana
Hmmm, well OK.....
DeleteBy the way, Brent and I were fellow undergraduate geology majors at Ohio State University in the late 1960s.