Reflections on Population Increase (Part I)
Some months ago, I wrote a long post on population growth and the problems of over-population. I had intended to revisit this when the Earth’s population passed the 7 billion mark, but my colleague Brett, who also has written on population in the past, beat me to it. (No hard feelings!) I was too busy to comment on his post, but I have been thinking about the question and some of the issues he raised. And this seems an appropriate moment, since as I am writing this piece, world population is going to (at least nominally) hit 7 billion, 5 million people. More precisely: the same demographic model which showed world population reaching 7 billion on October 31 shows that the population has grown by another 5 million people in the 24 days since then.
It is worth contemplating that number. Here is one way to put it into perspective: if we gathered all 5 million newborns into a single location, they would create the 58th largest municipality in the world, and would be the second largest city in the United States, behind only to New York. (Note that these numbers depend on the precise definition of “city” and “municipality” used: they suffice for a qualitative comparison.) Further, this does not stop: every 24 days, the equivalent of another city of 5 million people will be added to the world’s population. Currently, world population is growing at at a rate of 1.1% annually, down from a peak of 2% annually in the 1960′s. It is predicted that this rate will continue to decline steadily to about 0.5% in 2050. These changes are significant. If the population continued to grow by 1.1% annually until 2050, the population would be approximately 10.8 billion people, as opposed to the predicted value of just over 9 billion. Were population to have continued to grow at 2% per year from 1960 onwards, it would reach over 17 billion by 2050.
How big a population is too much for the earth to support? Answers are quite varied, and I must agree with Brett when he says that it depends. I disagree with him in that I have a much more pessimistic than he is. The answer depends not only on the size of the population but on the rate of consumption and here we come to the crux of the matter. A typical member of the middle class (however defined) in the U.S. or Canada consumes considerably more than someone living in Western Europe or Japan, who in turn consume more than the average member of the middle class in the emerging industrial nations of Brazil, China and India. One way of quantifying both population and consumption is in terms of the global footprint or ecological footprint of the inhabitants of a country. This is a statistical measure which tries to determine the total renewable resources that the earth produces: fish, crops, lumber, etc. It converts these to a standard measure called a “global hectare.” (Intuitively, you can think of a global hectare as the number of hectares required to produce all the renewable resources consumed by one person. It does not include non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels, iron ore, etc.) The global footprint of the average person in each of the countries listed above is as follows:
- US 8.0
- Canada 7.01
- Spain 5.42
- Germany 5.08
- France 5.01
- Italy 4.99
- Japan 4.73
- Brazil 2.91
- China 2.21
- India 0.91
Averaging over the entire earth, the mean global footprint of an individual is 2.7 global hectares. However, the best estimate of the carrying capacity of the earth for a population of 7 billion people is 1.8 global hectares per person (given total resources equivalent to 12 billion gha). In other words, we are consuming the Earth’s resources faster than they can be replenished. Now consider again the 5 million people born in the last 24 days: they will require approximately 13.5 million gha to support themselves. (This number again is qualitative, since it assumes that each requires the global mean of 2.7 gha; in fact most of these people are born in developing countries where the global footprint is smaller. The average global footprint of Latin America is between 2 and 3 gha, but for Africa is between 1 and 2, with parts of central Africa being lower still.) And for years to come, every 24 days this number will increase by another 13.5 million gha.
We can debate the accuracy of the global footprint metric, but it is a fairly sophisticated attempt to measure, in one statistic, disparate phenomena we see around us: depleted aquifers, deforestation, the collapse of fishing stocks. It is more accurate as a global measure; it appears to be less useful for local or regional analysis, since it obscures what is being over-consumed in a given region. But I see no reason to believe it is not accurate at least as a first order approximation. Given this, then I think two intertwined conclusions follow from this analysis. First, world patterns of consumption are unsustainable in the long run. The developed world simply cannot continue to consume natural resources at the rate at which it does, and even large parts of the developed world have consumption patterns that are not sustainable. Second, increasing population makes matters worse. A population of 9 billion could be supported only with a per capita consumption of 1.33 gha. (Countries that currently have such an average ecological footprint include the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam.) Given current disparities, the reality could well be a world in which some small fraction maintains much higher levels of consumption, while the vast majority of people exist on far less.
I want to stress that these are intertwined: we cannot concentrate on one or the other. Consider China, India and the US. Multiplying their respective per capita global footprints by their population sizes, you see that the US requires 2.47 billion gha, while China requires 2.95 billion gha. India, with its much lower rate of consumption, still requires 1.06 billion gha. India, however, has both a growing economy (8% a year) and growing population (1.4% a year). Suppose for the moment that global footprint grows at the same rate as the economy; then if these values remain constant, in 10 years India will require 2.6 billion gha, more than double the resources it currently consumes.
What is the solution? That is unclear. I believe that technology will necessarily be part of the solution: technology allows us to use resources more efficiently. However, I do no believe that some magic bullet will be discovered that will eliminate all of the problems that come together under the heading of over-consumption. Estimates that the Earth can sustain a population of 100 billion in carefully designed cities strike me as both hopelessly simplistic and predicated on unproven technological advances.
But I think we must also confront population growth, and it would be in everyone’s best interest if the rate of population growth were slowed as much as possible. Family size is a personal matter, but it also has global consequences. Yes, at the far reaches of demographic projections (90-100 years from now) population begins to decline due to projected falling birth rates and the concomitant aging population. However, the problems caused by population will have to be confronted long before we reach this point,and indeed before we reach the projected maximums. Population growth can and should be moderated in a non-coercive fashion: nothing I am saying should be construed as endorsing the Chinese model. According to demographers, the best approach to reduce the rate of population growth is via economic development and the the empowerment of women. Brazil is a very good example of this phenomenon.
Ironically, economic development will result in fewer people, but each one consuming more than in the past. Therefore, future development must follow sustainable models; the developing world cannot simply mimic the history of development in the West. Furthermore, the necessity of change falls more heavily on the West than on developing countries, since it is the West that needs to reduce its consumption and reconfigure it into more sustainable forms. To put it simply, we will have to make the greatest changes in our lifestyle. Based on my own experience, this is far harder than it seems: recycling, using cloth shopping bags, planting a garden and driving a Prius are good steps, but they are not sufficient. My wife and I have made a considerable effort to live simply, and by American standards we do. But the key is that this is by American standards: measured against a per capita ecological footprint of 8.0 gha. As a rough guess, I would say that we are, approximately, at European consumption levels: lower than the US average, but still far beyond what appears to be sustainable.
The solution, such as it is, will require a radical application of solidarity. The developing world will need to slow population growth. This will require extensive economic development. The resources for this must come from the West, which in turn must consume less and consume in a sustainable fashion. To make this work, everyone’s life must change. From the West it will require not simply charity, but a very different understanding of ownership and consumption. Here, I think, the Catholic tradition has something to say. One of the Eastern fathers, St. Basil, accurately described the understanding that will be necessary to achieve a just, sustainable future:
Naked did you not drop from the womb? Shall you not return again naked to the earth? Where have the things you now possess come from? If you say they just spontaneously appeared, then you are an atheist, not acknowledging the Creator, nor showing any gratitude towards the one who gave them. But if you say that they are from God, declare to us the reason why you received them. Is God unjust, who divided to us the things of this life unequally? Why are you wealthy while that other man is poor? Is it, perhaps, in order that you may receive wages for kindheartedness and faithful stewardship, and in order that he may be honored with great prizes for his endurance? But, as for you, when you hoard all these things in the insatiable bosom of greed, do you suppose you do no wrong in cheating so many people? Who is a man of greed? Someone who does not rest content with what is sufficient. Who is a cheater? Someone who takes away what belongs to others. And are you not a man of greed? are you not a cheater? taking those things which you received for the sake of stewardship, and making them your very own? Now, someone who takes a man who is clothed and renders him naked would be termed a robber; but when someone fails to clothe the naked, while he is able to do this, is such a man deserving of any other appellation? The bread which you hold back belongs to the hungry; the coat, which you guard in your locked storage-chests, belongs to the naked; the footwear mouldering in your closet belongs to those without shoes. The silver that you keep hidden in a safe place belongs to the one in need. Thus, however many are those whom you could have provided for, so many are those whom you wrong.
In the end, here I find something far sadder than the problems facing the Earth. For there are solutions, and we, as a Church, hold a strong part of the solution in our hands. But to share it, we must first acknowledge that there is a problem.
Comments are closed.
There is a lot of wisdom in this post. I think your conclusion is accurate, and I’d like to tie it back to your statement that I think is very closely linked:
What is the solution? That is unclear. I believe that technology will necessarily be part of the solution: technology allows us to use resources more efficiently. However, I do no believe that some magic bullet will be discovered that will eliminate all of the problems that come together under the heading of over-consumption. Estimates that the Earth can sustain a population of 100 billion in carefully designed cities strike me as both hopelessly simplistic and predicated on unproven technological advances.
The sharing of gold and silver is, of necessity, an investment into technology. If I were to share my gold and silver to buy a thousand loaves a day to feed my poor neighbors, I am going to need some mechanism of getting it there before it stales and turns green. Of necessity, and sustainable investment into caring for our brother requires an investment into technology. This is the key.
As a closet physicist and computer scientist, I do believe the “magic bullet” technology you believe is unworkable is not so unreasonable. But it will require us sharing our gold and silver to make happen. If everyone in the world were to invest into fusion energy and make it a reality, I’d wager (quite unscientifically) that our per-capita resource footprint would decrease by up to 80%. It’s not that far away.
a very different understanding of ownership
So that is how you mean to argue for coercion of the masses in achieving your ideal.
You are inferring something I did not say. Reread the quote from St. Basil, father of the Church. Then google the teachings of St. Gregory Nazianzus on the poor. Then read papal teaching on the universal destination of all goods. Then we can talk.
But the question is, how do you mean to achieve these ends? A “very different understanding of ownership” sounds like the sort of thing they tell you before they come for you with guns.
If you want to argue that people should give up their living standards in order to stave off the vague and ambiguous threat of “too many people,” fine (which I don’t believe in the least). But this does not call for an alternate understanding of “property” that would allow you to declare it right to rob one because you do it in the name of St. Basil or God or the Church.
If this isn’t your intent, then please feel free to demonstrate the need for this “alternate understanding” of property.
Bryce,
first, why do you think over-population is a “vague and ambiguous threat” that you “don’t believe in the least”? Do you find the data unpersuasive? Do you have an alternative reading?
As for an alternative understanding of property. In the modern age in the West, private property is understood as an absolute: it is mine and I can do what I want with it without encumbrance or obligation. The Church has NEVER held to such a definition of private property. The Church teaches that while we have private property, this right is subordinate to and conditioned by the universal destination of all goods: ultimately, we are stewards of God’s creation, not its owners. A poor man who is hungry who steals food to eat is not stealing; he is taking what is his by right. The point Basil is making in the above is that it is not charity when we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. but justice: we are restoring to the poor man what is rightfully his. In the Middle Ages, theologians argued that the state had a right, if a rich man did not give alms, to force him to. I guess this is the robbery which you are referring to.
Why do we need this new understanding of ownership? Because I believe it will only be when people recognize that it is justice, not charity, that requires them to share their wealth will we get the redistribution of goods necessary.
So we have an obligation to help those in need. This I never doubted or questioned. I am only curious about whether you intend for the state to forcibly redistribute wealth, or not. As an aside, I do not believe in enforcing non-aggressive moral obligations through the threat of violence or coercion. Not even “for God,” or whatever you want.
But ultimately the idea of property rights seems unaffected by this concern we should all have for the poor. It is true that our moral obligation to the poor persists, but I don’t see that this obligation is contradictory to one’s being free to simply not fulfill that obligation. The Western notion of private property, where one’s control over their property is absolute and bounded only by non-aggression, stands apart from the consideration of moral obligations.
As to overpopulation, I can find no evidence that such is the case. The median living standard is rising and becoming more accessible for more people, even as population rises. If there is no observed inverse correlation between population and median living standard, then why should I believe that more population will necessarily or even probably lead to lower living standards in the future?
What do you mean by median standard of living? I searched extensively for a global statistic that could correspond to this assertion, but found nothing. The human development index from the U.N. is rising, but it is an incomplete statistic and I could not find any way of making sense of a “median HDI” except among nations, not among individuals. And aggregating in that fashion obscures a lot of information. As for lower standards of living in the future, just look at the impact of tightening markets for grains. In the US, it causes food inflation which we can live with (though I have watched my grocery bills climb every month); in the developing world it leads to food riots.
A living standard is not something quantifiable. It is simply what sort of level of consumption of one’s wants and needs a person is able to manage. A higher living standard is always preferable, and it will be one in which one’s preferred choices are easier to obtain. (So one could be an ascetic and still be said to enjoy a high living standard.)
Compare life now to as it was 100 years ago. Almost no country has a lower life expectancy. Technological advances like the automobile, aspirin, antibiotics, airplanes, the Internet, cell phones, refrigerators, TV’s, and such have increased the median living standard vastly, as well as becoming widely available (compare 100 years ago to now in terms of car ownership). Anywhere there is widespread suffering it is largely due to violence and the arbitrary whims of warlords.
If food, medicine, and other amenities are more plentiful now and available to a greater portion of the earth’s population than ever before, than I reckon there is a higher median standard of living than there was previously.
Therefore, there is no necessary inverse relationship between population and median living standard.
*Your example of tightening grain markets has a lot more to do with measures meant to supplement our consumption of oil, i.e. the subsidization of ethanol productions, which makes corn scarcer, which makes food more expensive. So this example can be explained by pointing to interference in the economy by the American government.
The only likely thing that will reduce standards of living in the future is wars and interventions made by government. Some of this, I will note, due to alarmism about “overpopulation,” though for now a lot more of it do with global warming.
Your repeated use of the word median implies that a living standard is quantifiable, or at least ordered: given two individuals you can decide whether one has a higher standard of living than the other. The median standard of living would be the standard of living at which 50% of the population lives at or below. If you don’t mean median, please use another word.
If you don’t believe in global warming, despite the wealth of evidence making it clear that it is happening, then it is probably pointless trying to convince you that population increase is something to worry about.
In my mind consumerism is the biggest threat to the planet. As long as we have an economy based on selling people things they don’t need, this is gonna be a tough ship to turn around. Exporting that economic model is disastrous.
I’m not sure that encouraging people to have fewer kids will really help. If the birth rate is already declining to the point that the total human population will start declining within a century( i.e. not much longer than a human life span), how much can we really speed that up without draconian measures? It would be one thing if Canadians and Americans were having 7 or 8 kids per woman, but we’re not. If a drop in the birth rate will actually help the planet, it’s already been more-or-less achieved.
The technology thing is interesting, but quite unpredictable. There are lots of really neat ideas out there. My brother-in-law is a rocket scientist and he is always up on this stuff. He talks about not being too far from a kind of universal recycler that could break down all our waste into it’s component elements. Something like that would make a massive difference, but who knows when or if it’s actually coming. Finding a safe and clean way to de-salinate ocean water would also be world changing. You’d think if we can build a nuke and fly to the moon we could figure that one out. But again, who knows?
Brett, the problem with counting on population declining in a century is that demographic models get fuzzier the further you get out. The most recent UN models attempted to switch from deterministic to probabilistic models, and the results can vary wildly. We have not achieved a reduction in birth rates: we hope, based on current trends, that we have. This could reverse fairly quickly. In fact, birth rates have begun to tick up again in Western Europe. (They are still below replacement levels, but the reversal is the point.)
Also, though the demographic trends for Catholics are identical to the broader US population, the institutional Church is very ambivalent in confronting population growth—see some of the links I had in my original post last February. Moreover, there is a small but vocal minority in the Church that vehemently denies there is any problem and strongly advocates for large families as the norm for Catholics. This is precisely what we do not need.
Again, I would point to the model of Brazil in the second half of the 20th century, Italy in the first half of the 20th century and France in the 19th century: non-coercive methods can have a significant impact on birth rates even when unintentional. An intentional approach could speed the development cycle, lifting millions out of poverty more quickly and simultaneously reducing birth rates more quickly.
Here we come into agreement: to speed development we cannot export our own economic model. The problem is, we do, if only through media and advertising: Nikes are as popular in central Africa as they are in the US. So we need to lead the way by changing our own system to the one we want to export.
David,
Just trying to understand your position. What are these non-coercive methods you mention?
Education, economic development. A deliberate campaign suggesting that fewer, healthier children is better for families.
However, I must be honest and also confront the fact that all the major demographic shifts from high to low birthrate that I mentioned (Brazil, Italy, France) were accomplished non-coercively because the people themselves decided that smaller families were better, and actively used various means of birth control to avoid pregnancy. I am not necessarily advocating this, but it is a historical reality that must be noted. The Church has had an ambivalent reaction to this; Noonan documents Leo XIII’s instructions for confessors in France that seemed to amount to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Things I have read suggest that confessors in Italy adopted a similar approach until the publication of Casta Connubi by Pius XI. I am not aware of how the bishops in Brazil responded.
I’d be very careful about the “fewer, healthier” children bit. That kind of logic will turn into designer babies real quick, and pre-natal screening with an eye to abortion even quicker. Given that this logic is already widespread, I think Catholics need to take the exact opposite line.
As I mentioned on an old post about abortion, a friend of mine with a little girl with a hearing aid was very boldly told, in the girl’s presence, “They can test for that, you know.”
Your point is well taken Brett, though I was thinking of a very different context. I was thinking more about third world countries where children (especially sons) are regarded as a form of social security. What I was thinking of was suggesting that having fewer children who were better provided for, who could go to school, and had meaningful opportunities for work were a better investment for their future.
Your concerns seem more pertinent to a consumer driven culture like our own. And with a son with Down Syndrome I am very familiar with the sort of nonsense you describe.
I suspected that’s what you meant, but it is something that we need to be very careful about. I know many Catholics who now make a deliberate point to balk when people give the standard “as long as it’s healthy” answer to the question about the baby’s sex. They say, “No. Even if it’s not.” That’s the kind of thing I had in mind for “exact opposite line.”
Of course, children (and land) are, historically, the best social security. Once more and more of them survive to adulthood, people will have less and less.
For there are solutions, and we, as a Church, hold a strong part of the solution in our hands.
I am hopeful that we will find a host of small and continuous solutions to this problem. I also see the reality of cycles of uneven progress where disparities and wars flare about. You’re right, of course, that the future is unclear; but the future is ours to make what we will.
The pessimists sell the human potential short. They think we are determined by our flaws. They gauge people without dignity seeing them as rats or jellyfish unable to control themselves and seek to battle concupiscence with systems of controls, coercion and heavy handed political power. Ultimately, we need to shed our social and personal addictions gracefully, for these are what stress our resources. And for these we gear up our real long term solution: spiritual poverty.
In fact, we are graced and sentient beings and it is certainly within our power to move through this to a brighter future. That’s why I set my priority on authentic gospel evangelization and building a fraternal world; regarding these as the highest form of human development. By the way, I’m not interested in building a utopian world, for that’s a curse to the spiritual struggle. I’m just concerned about leaving the planet slightly better so that the next generation (and the next) can continue with the pilgrim journey.
“Ultimately, we need to shed our social and personal addictions gracefully….”
I could not agree more. The first step in this is acknowledging there is a problem and identifying its contours. Here I think part of the problem is that we have entered a post-ideological era: with the (unlamented) demise of state-communism, capitalism and liberal democracy are no longer seen as ideologies but as “the way things are.” As a result we are trapped in structures of sin: social patterns in which it becomes easier, “natural” if you will, to act in ways that are either sinful or contribute to broader problems. This morning my daily paper was almost impossible to lift because of the “black Friday” ads. Coercion masquerading as capitalist freedom that directly contributes to the unsustainable patterns of consumption.
As a result we are trapped in structures of sin: social patterns in which it becomes easier, “natural” if you will, to act in ways that are either sinful or contribute to broader problems.
All of the ‘ideologies’ are secular paradigms of life with blindspots of faith. That’s why its imperative to be a guiding ‘voice of contradiction’ to a world caught in its own waywardness.
The first step in this is acknowledging there is a problem and identifying its contours.
I am torn by this. On the one hand, I see your point, but on the other hand, I believe that one key piece that everyone ignores is that technological progress is a function of population. It’s pure statistics – the more people we have, the better we can mobilize the earth’s resources toward the betterment of humanity. Likewise, the more people we have, the greater the overall number of Albert Einsteins that are produced at the ends of the population bell curve.
The reason why we live better than the greatest kings of ancient times and our life expectancy has doubled is ultimately a statistical inevitability of our surging population. In the end, despite people’s cries of population woes, people have always starved, even when there were only handfuls of us. Today, even the poorest of us live better lives than our ancestors. That means something.
“Likewise, the more people we have, the greater the overall number of Albert Einsteins that are produced at the ends of the population bell curve.”
True, but this oversimplifies things, since there is no guarantee that these “Einsteins” will be educated or otherwise have the resources to contribute towards the “betterment of humanity.” Even today we waste the potential of many people in our own country as well as in the developing world. To call progress a “statistical inevitability” is overly deterministic, and ignores the role people have in their own fates. The Roman Empire was, in many parts, densely populated and highly advanced. This did not prevent their civilization from collapsing, a collapse that Europe spent hundreds of years overcoming. Similarly, the Maya of Central America were highly developed and had a large population; both collapsed. The presence of more people does not, by itself, guarantee progress.
I think you just indicated that it does. You cited two examples of densely populated civilizations that made significant technological leaps forward and consequently their civilization thrived. The key problem is that once we, as a race, begin to thrive, our fallen nature causes us to become decadent and self-destruct. It wasn’t Rome’s population that caused it to implode.
Overconsumption of resources (a consequence of overpopulation) is conjectured to have played a major role in the collapse of the classical Mayan civilization. And my point was not that population growth is not correlated with technological advances, but rather to challenge your simplistic and positivist causality: that ever increasing populations will yield ever improving technological advances resulting in an ever increasing quality of life. Both Rome and the Maya stand in contradiction to that.
Rome does not. Maya may be argued. I am not educated enough on their culture to know.
In the end, we both have the same point. I’m doing the same thing you’re doing – challenging what appears to be an overly simplistic view of a complex matter. You throw out some fancy math and assert that there is a problem that we must acknowledge. I throw out some fancy math to show that there are other factors involved which may indicate that we don’t have a problem. The reality requires much fancier math than any one individual or group could ever produce.
I think my point is that we have shown, as a species, to be very adaptive to the economic opportunities created by resource shortage. More population = more demand = more opportunity. If water becomes in short supply, you can bet your horses there will be hundreds of entrepreneurs backed by billions in venture capital who want to become the first to figure out how to create an efficient de-salinization program.
[Please delete the above comment and use this one instead]
Always remember that the resources of the world are never destroyed, they are only transformed. Societies have proven to be able to extract/manipulate/recycle resources in ways thought by previous generations to be impossible.
I was taught population geography by a professor from Calcutta. She thought over-population is rubbish and I believe her.
The problem is not people. It’s the way people are living – consuming. You seem to say this at places, but then insist on calling it by the wrong thing- Over population, when you should say over consumption.
I personally don’t know of any large families with an ethos of consumption … do you? In my experience, an extra kid means an older car, more beans at dinner, an extra year of hand-me-downs. The biggest families I know live VERY simply. It’s the families with one or two kids who can afford to buy another SUV, a pack of lunchables, a three story house – and do.
Well, I think your teacher is wrong: I believe, as I tried to make clear, that both consumption and population are the problem. A larger family might consume less per capita (though I have known large families who did indeed engage in conspicuous consumption) but they still consume more. Again, consider the consumption numbers for China and the US. The US consumes more per capita, but China consumes more overall precisely because their population is so much larger.
It’s pure statistics – the more people we have, the better we can mobilize the earth’s resources toward the betterment of humanity.
The top three countries in fertility rate are Niger, Guinea-Bissau, and Afghanistan. If more people ==> more ideas ==> more growth, why are these not the most prosperous places in the world?
I personally don’t know of any large families with an ethos of consumption … do you?
If you’re worried about the environment, isn’t it kind of odd to look at consumption this way? A family with four kids, even who live frugally, almost certainly use more resources than a family with two, unless by consuming less you mean a third-world lifestyle. Bring your own bags to the grocery if you want, but let’s not pretend that wipes out the effect of adding another person. The Duggars released an immense amount of carbon in their trip to the UK. It really is second order whether or not they wear hand-me-downs while they are there.
In other words, nothing is stopping someone who would live frugally to have a large family to live frugally and have a small one, and such an action would be better for the environment. I’m not particularly worried about it, but it is a tradeoff, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise.
Actually, if I were Catholic (I’m not), I’d be more worried about Brett’s scenario of economic growth than a Malthusian collapse. I’m actually quite optimistic that we can invent our way out of trouble, at least in the near and medium term. But I am extremely skeptical that a world paved over like Coruscant and with people zipping between space colonies would be a particularly congenial one to traditional religious belief.
The top three countries in fertility rate are Niger, Guinea-Bissau, and Afghanistan. If more people ==> more ideas ==> more growth, why are these not the most prosperous places in the world?
Because I indicated that progress is a function of population, but it is not the only parameter to that function. You need resources in order to mobilize them. Hence the reason why desolate areas are chronically behind the curve. Replace the deserts in Africa with the resources of Europe and you’d see a very different world over there.
And here we again come to my main point: ever increasing population sizes are exceeding the available resources. So by your own logic we cannot count on continued progress bailing us out of this mess.
There is a fundamental difference between depletion of available resources and a fundamental lack of resources. We have proven to become much more efficient at harvesting and manipulating existing resources as our population base has increased. That is a statistical fact, and one that the population alarmists ignore. We are quite content to take history as our guide in many other disciplines, but seemingly not in this one. Here’s the ultimate test:
Population @ 10,000,000: hunger/death rate: xa%
Population @ 100,000,000: hunger/death rate: xb%
Population @ 1,000,000,000: hunger/death rate: xc%
Population @ 2,000,000,000: hunger/death rate: xd%
Population @ 3,000,000,000: hunger/death rate: xe%
Population @ 4,000,000,000: hunger/death rate: xf%
Population @ 5,000,000,000: hunger/death rate: xg%
Population @ 6,000,000,000: hunger/death rate: xf%
Population @ 7,000,000,000: hunger/death rate: xg%
What is the rate of growth of xa->xg? If it stays relatively constant, that means there are other influencing factors that must be quantified before we can start ringing the alarm bells about overpopulation.
One thing is for sure, there are few topics which elicit the emotional responses which this one does. A couple of weeks ago when the “7-billionth baby” headlines hit the news, it all came out of the woodwork. If you scrolled down to the comments on any of the articles on the news sites (mistake!), there was a lot of really ugly, frightening things said. That people seemed to really believe. Some of it could be summed up as “We’re heading for something like the black plague to come along and wipe out about a third of the population of the world, if we don’t start seriously limiting our numbers, and maybe it would be a good thing.”
Then there’s the other side, “We don’t have a problem.” Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
The dilemma is, how do you reject coercion and immoral means as a solution, and at the same time address the very real suffering and unsustainability of the present, let alone the future? You certainly had it right in one of your comments above”…the institutional Church is very ambivalent in confronting population growth…”
We could all, of course, use a good dose of “use it up, wear it out, fix it up, do without”. But there is a limit to how far that can go. Personally, I would be willing to have the standard of living of the 1950′s. Maybe even the 1940′s. The 1930′s? Not so much. I grew up hearing stories of no indoor plumbing and the “little house out back”; clothes being sewn from flour sacks on a treadle sewing machine, kerosene lamps, a stove which one cooked on and heated the house which burned maybe coal, perhaps wood or corn cobs, and dry cow chips if that was what was available. Most of us want better than that for our children and grandchildren.
And the underdeveloped sections of the world? They want better than semi-starvation for their children, too. Education and raising the status of women in some places would definitely help. NFP can be taught in situations where there is limited literacy (Dr. Evelyn Billings did some work on this). But it presupposed an equality between spouses which simply does not exist in some cultures, where a woman can’t say, “Not tonight, dear, wrong time of the cycle. We want to wait awhile before the next one.”
Personally, I would be willing to have the standard of living of the 1950′s.
I’m not.
And I’m not being flippant. A lot of people here seem to think that “consumption” means just throwing money away, but it doesn’t. It means things people really care about and that give them legitimate pleasure.
Let me give an example. I’m visiting my parents and spending time with my father, who has Alzheimer’s. He probably doesn’t have many holidays of recognizing me left. In the 50s, there’s no way I’d be making that trip. Plane tickets (as a fraction of income) were simply too expensive tor a student to afford.
Would I be able to live without coming home? Certainly. But I see no reason I should do so just because some people really really like kids. You want to consume in the form of having more babies. I’d rather do so in “traditional consumption”, and I cannot see why the other way is better.
And itis consumption to have a large family. Parents get pleasure out of raising children, and I’m quite happy for them. But it isn’t some sacrifice they’re making for the greater good. We’re hard-wired through billions of years of evolution to get pleasure out of it.
I don’t think Melody is advocating for large families as a form of consumption. I took her to be commenting on the equitable division of resources. What if the only fair way of dividing resources among the population of the earth required (perhaps for a long period of transition) that we (meaning Americans and the residents of other developed countries) reduce our standard of living to that of the US in the 1950s? Would that be worth the personal sacrifice (and I acknowledge it as a sacrifice) you discuss?
David is correct that I am not advocating for large families as a form of consumption. And you raise a legitimate point that when we talk about “consumption” we aren’t always talking about waste or excess, but sometimes things that are good in their own right. I guess I’d like to see us (and that definitely includes me) do a little better job of weeding out what is important and what isn’t.
When this issue of population comes up, I fall back on this thought. Consider population not as an abstract statistic, but in the particular. So consider an environmentally-conscious, resource-respecting, farm-living Catholic family with 20 kids, and consider a single Paris-Hilton-like Hollywood celebrity. Who consumes more of the earth’s resources? The celebrity. Who will have a greater influence on the hearts and minds of the people around them when it comes to encouraging and teaching others to have a greater respect for the earth and its resources? The Catholic family, exponentially so. And to top it all off, who will have a greater influence in evangelizing and bringing more souls into the heavenly Kingdom? Again, the Catholic family.
So I guess, for me, it comes to down to this: the ultimate solution to having a world that lives sustainably and in respect of the earth’s resources, is for all people to have hearts and minds inclined to respect the earth’s resources and for all people to see themselves as stewards of God’s earth. (Similarly, the ultimate solution to having a world without abortion is for all people to have hearts and minds inclined against abortion.) Shrinking the population is not the ultimate solution, because if you had an underpopulated world of jet-setting Hollywood celebrities, with careless fathers who spoil the earth by razing jungles and dropping atomic bombs, the earth would be much worse off.
Now I know that the response is “of course we have to change the hearts and minds of people, but how do we actually do that? What policies, laws, and traditions should be instituted or encouraged in order to do that?” That is the central question. I know it’s a very difficult question and I don’t have any good answers. (The same dilemma occurs with abortion.) Perhaps encouraging couples to consider natural family planning with an eye on the earth’s resources is a good step. Perhaps some other traditions or policies are appropriate. But regardless of what policies we debate, the ultimate end in mind should always be “having people be good stewards of God’s earth”, not “reducing the population.” If the ultimate end becomes “reducing the population,” it sometimes gets easy to fall into thinking that abortion, contraception, sterilization or coercive means of family planning are the keys to a healthy earth.
A last thought: All things being equal — that is, if consumption of resources or physical space or ability to responsibly raise children or sufficient money to raise a child or being called by God to abstain or being celibate, or any other thing wasn’t an issue — then, ever-expanding population is not merely neutral; instead, it’s a great good. Assuming there was no reason to limit the human race, the human race should cooperate with God and multiply and create as many immortal souls as possible. Let’s not forget that. Of course there are plenty of reasonable and good and even holy reasons for an individual, or a married couple, or our society as a whole, not to have another baby at any given moment. But let’s not forget the infinite good that is another existing newly-created human person.
So consider an environmentally-conscious, resource-respecting, farm-living Catholic family with 20 kids, and consider a single Paris-Hilton-like Hollywood celebrity.
Like David (and I) have said, why exactly are these supposed to be the collectively exhaustive set of possibilities? Why can’t we consider the “environmentally-conscious, resource-respecting, farm-living Catholic family with 2 kids” as well?
Thales,
I think we are in broad agreement, though I think in the end it may be necessary to actually let the human population decrease. Not as an end in itself, but rather as a means to create a sustainable future for our posterity. I agree fully with what Chris said above: I don’t accept your dichotomy. Both your choices are problematic, and both will lead to excess consumption of pursued to their extremes.
You also say,
“Assuming there was no reason to limit the human race, the human race should cooperate with God and multiply and create as many immortal souls as possible.”
This touches on a topic I want to explore in more detail in another post (the Part II alluded to in the Part I in the title above). I look forward to your comments when I do. For now, let me just say that I don’t think all other things are equal, and we need to address the situation we find ourselves in now.
Chris and David,
Hhmm, I think that we’re coming to a point of significant disagreement between us. You say that I’ve got a false dichotomy; while I think that you are too narrow in your thinking. Chris asks Why can’t we consider the “environmentally-conscious, resource-respecting, farm-living Catholic family with 2 kids” as well? My answer is “Because 5 or more people have a greater ability to change the culture than only 4 people.”
Let me explain my answer, but before I do that, a quick caveat: These discussions about how many kids someone should have are very difficult, because God’s plan for each one of us is drastically different. God might be calling someone to marriage, and someone to celibacy; He might be calling a fertile couple to accept the sacrifices that come with a big family, or He might be calling an infertile couple to accept the sacrifices that come with no children; He might want a couple to be open to more children because they have the time and money and opportunity to care for more children, or He might want a couple to be open to fewer children because He wants the couple to give more of themselves to the community in a special way that would be difficult or impossible with a bigger family. Every individual is different and has unique circumstances, and thus God calls everyone to a unique path. What I’m saying is in no way a generalization about how a couple or a family should be — it’s up to everyone to discern God’s will for their lives.
Now with that caveat out of the way, to my explanation. Here’s my position: assuming all things being equal (ie, the family’s unique particular circumstances or God Himself are not suggesting a different outcome), I think it would be better for the earth-respecting Catholic family to have more children than fewer. Why? Because the goal is to evangelize the world to become stewards of God’s earth — and more people have a wider influence, and thus a greater ability, to change the hearts and minds of our culture than fewer people. So, I’m thinking that in the long-run, having 5 people who are conscious of the earth’s resources and of being God’s stewards and who are engaging and evangelizing the culture would lead to a more sustainable future for our posterity than only 4 people engaging the culture. In other words, I’m suggesting that the resources that are ultimately conserved by a culture changed by one additional earth-respecting person who is evangelizing that culture is greater than the net amount of resources that comes with one fewer living person. The world is better off having the one additional earth-respecting person than one less person. And that’s not even considering all the other great good that comes with an additional person, ie, the fact that there is one more immortal soul than there was before and one more person who can work to bring other souls to Christ.
What do you think?
GIGO.
Dan,
I do want to say that accusing a mathematician of using “fancy math” does have a pejorative ring to it. At the risk of sounding defensive, I really labored over this post to provide a concise and simple explanation of a fairly complex idea. And conversely, I don’t think you have used any fancy math in your response at all. You have made some assertions that you claim are backed by mathematics or statistics: you said things were “pure statistics”, a “statistical inevitability”, or a “statistical fact”. However, you never provided any data or references to data that would support these arguments.
I agree that technological improvements have played a major role in the ability of the Earth to support an increasingly large population. And technology will continue to play a role in the future. However, it is not at all obvious to me that technology will allow us to continue to expand the population endlessly and to allow that population to consume at a rate comparable to the rate of consumption in the West today. Indeed, the conclusion I draw from the data above is that we are running into absolute resource constraints that we have never faced before.
A big problem I see with your argument to the contrary is that in the end it is overly optimistic. On the one hand you you make the deterministic claim that “More population = more demand = more opportunity”, but in another point you undermine this with your comments on Rome. Rome fell, you said, because “The key problem is that once we, as a race, begin to thrive, our fallen nature causes us to become decadent and self-destruct.” So my question is this: given the much greater problems we face now, how can you be so confident that the burgeoning population will lead to endless development, and that we will not instead allow the greed and selfishness of our fallen natures to create a situation in which billions starve while a minority maintains a lavish lifestyle?
My comments about fancy math were meant to be tongue-in-cheek and very much good natured. As I have said all along, I do see your point. I simply am not convinced it has historical precedent. That’s all.
I could very well be wrong – we’re in uncharted waters, and even though historically we have adapted quite well, there could be an inflexion point where the rate of resource consumption exceeds the rate of growth of efficiency. And I tend to agree that consumerism accelerates the possibility of passing such an inflexion point. I just have no data to support that at this time.
So my question is this: given the much greater problems we face now, how can you be so confident that the burgeoning population will lead to endless development, and that we will not instead allow the greed and selfishness of our fallen natures to create a situation in which billions starve while a minority maintains a lavish lifestyle?
I never said I was confident that our fallen nature isn’t going to be our undoing. But things like this give me much hope:
http://givingpledge.org/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/11/02/the-second-coming-of-bill-gates/
You have the wealthiest individuals in the world allocating most of their resources to help the less fortunate. This should be very humbling and we should approach this with gratitude to God for how our hearts, as a society, may just be softening.
Fair enough: I missed the humor but I am happy to know that is what you meant. Yes, the situation we are now in does not have historical precedent. Previous episodes of resource depletion were generally local or regional—e.g. the Maya. Now we are entering an era of global resource depletion in the sense that many different depletions are happening simultaneously.
I have heard of the giving pledge and it is a wonderful thing, though the list as it stands is depressingly short. Also, I am put in mind of the 19th century robber barons, who plundered their way to great wealth and then decided to make amends by giving large chunks of it away. I do not want to disparage the giving, which was sincere, but I think we need to end the plundering as well.