"Population growth is the primary source of environmental damage."
— Jacques Cousteau, Renowned Oceanographer and Founder of the Cousteau Society
"Human population growth is the most pressing environmental problem facing the U.S. and the world."
— John Flicker, President of the National Audubon Society
"Smart growth destroys the environment. Dumb growth destroys the environment. Smart growth just destroys the environment with good taste."
— Albert A. Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Colorado
In 1900, the world's population was only 1.6 billion; today it's over 6 billion and estimated to be 8 billion by 2028, followed by 9 billion in 2054.1 It's estimated that the U.S. population will grow to more than 400 million citizens by 2050—where the growth rate is estimated to continue rapidly.2 Researchers estimate that the Earth could sustain 2 billion people with the consumption rate roughly equal to what the average European consumes (which is very comfortable and far less wasteful than in America), while allowing the current level of plants and animals to survive at the natural extinction rate.3 That means the Earth already has "three" times the number of people it can support in a comfortable and sustainable manner. Approximately every three seconds the world adds seven people to its population and every ten seconds the U.S. adds another person to its population.4 In other words, taken as a whole, one child becomes 76 million people added to 6 billion every year.5
The "Technology Will Save Us" Argument
Prior to humanity's extensive use of technology and the explosive population growth it helped to create, the natural extinction rate for plants and animals was approximately one to ten species a year.6 During the last few hundred years, humanity has increased species extinction rates by as much as 1,000 times the background rates typical of Earth's history.7 Many politicians and corporations tell us not to worry about the environment and argue that technology will solve all our problems in the future. History and science don't support these claims and we have too much at stake to accept such hollow reassurances. Nuclear waste, global warming, toxic chemicals, deforestation, overgrazing, wetland destruction, topsoil erosion, river and aquifer depletion, coral reefs dying, and the loss of biological diversity are just a few of the massive problems associated with the seen and unforeseen consequences of technology. The late physicist and Nobel laureate Dr. Henry Kendall states, "What we need is a much broader recognition of the problems that careless human activities are bringing upon us. A realization that we cannot be rescued by science and technology because these problems at their root are human problems and have to be dealt with as such, and it's clear to the scientific community that this is the case."8 Furthermore, all technology has consequences on a finite planet.
In addition to the environmental and public safety concerns of technology, it's also important to realize and consider that technology has political implications. For example, our oil-dependent world economy makes humanity more likely to get involved in wars to protect this critical economic resource. Although we now have solar and wind technology to reduce this hazard on a grand scale, we continue to depend on oil and the centralized technology surrounding its use. As citizens, we must consider how technology interacts with our political structure and democracy. For example, oil and nuclear power are extremely dangerous and expensive to produce—leading to highly centralized control—making it difficult for citizens to monitor and hold politicians and corporations accountable. Solar and wind power, however, are much safer, far less damaging and costly than oil and nuclear power, and they can be installed and maintained by almost anyone—leading to decentralized and democratic control.
We must not submit to short-term and simplistic thinking when dealing with technology, automation, economic, environmental, social, and political issues—they are all interconnected—change one and you've affected all the others. Our physical and spiritual well-being can no longer tolerate a blind and unchallenging faith in technology. Furthermore, as we will discuss next, technology is only part of the equation.
It's Not Us
Many Americans argue that they are not the problem, it's the less developed countries in the world and their fertility rate of 10 or more children. However, this is not true. First, the fertility rate for less than developed countries is 3.2 children and the fertility rate for developed countries is 1.6 (the U.S. fertility rate is 2.1). Secondly, there are additional factors to one's environmental impact than just the number of children one has—consumption and technology must also be added into the equation. Given this information, the environmental impact of every person on the planet can be represented using the following formula:9
Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology
Where Population represents the number of people in a country, Affluence represents the standard level of consumption, and Technology represents the environmental destruction indirectly caused by technology.
For example, the environmental impact of a woman giving birth to just one child in the U.S. is equivalent to a woman in India giving birth to 35 children; in Bangladesh it's 140 children; in Haiti it's 280 children.10 Of course, parents in these countries don't have anywhere near this many children and consequently don't impact the environment like the parents in the U.S. and other developed countries. The fertility rate in India is 3.1, in Bangladesh it's 3.3, and in Haiti it's 4.7.
To ignore the environmental destruction caused by overconsumption, the consequences of technology, and overpopulation is not leadership—leaders set the example and make sacrifices for the common good so others will follow. Humanity must quickly reduce its numbers and there's no time to waste. Every year, we lose at least 1,000 species (with some estimates at 50,000 per year) and the number continues to increase.11 The decline of biodiversity is the biggest disaster humanity has ever faced. Yet, for all practical purposes, it's being ignored by religion, society, and government.
The "Smart People" Argument
If citizens in developed countries (especially in the U.S.) would reduce their consumption and pollution, limit themselves to one child, and delay that child's birth for as long as possible; it would greatly reduce our impact on the planet and save thousands (possibly millions) of species from extinction. Of course, adopting the children that are already here (instead of creating additional children) would save even more species from extinction. Furthermore, if Americans would put pressure on politicians to drastically reduce immigration and assist less-developed countries with equal rights for women, education, and contraceptive services; it would save even more species from extinction, reduce poverty, and decrease terrorism. While working toward these goals and providing leadership, we must also put pressure on politicians to protect the biodiversity and wildlife habitat still remaining on the planet by supporting conservation, renewable energy sources, and other sane economic policies.
Many people argue that the world needs "their" children because they are smarter than the rest of us. However, this argument has no merit. If actions of intelligent people were so important, we wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place. The world's so-called "intelligent" people (the rich and middle class) are far more responsible for the world's problems than the "less" intelligent. Here's why. Most so-called intelligent people clear huge tracts of land to build enormous homes, shopping centers, country clubs, etc. They spray large quantities of pesticides on their factory farms, lawns, gardens, and golf courses. They invest huge sums of money into industries that destroy the environment on a monumental scale and they vote for politicians gutting the environment and democracy under the pretense of religion, family values, and character. Over the centuries, they've displaced and absorbed indigenous people who have lived thousands of years in a sustainable manner. Nevertheless, poor and uneducated citizens also cause extensive environmental impact. Poor citizens have higher fertility rates and their desperate conditions and lack of education increase the probability of abusive and willful misuse of the local environment. The solution is for all citizens to decrease their impact by adopting the children that are already here or at least limiting themselves to one biological child and at the same time reducing wasteful consumption and pollution while improving equal rights for women, education, and critical thinking around the world.
Unfortunately, the more likely scenario will be nearly 9 billion people by the year 2054 unless individuals from all walks of life start taking leadership roles. How many species will die under this kind of population growth? What kind of future does this hold for the children of today and tomorrow?
Don't Kill the Messenger
There are many nurturing alternatives to having one or more biological children or grandchildren. Again, one can adopt the children that are already here or one can devote more of their life or free time to educating the public on the importance of reducing our population, promoting conservation, and preserving our biodiversity. At some point, humanity must realize that for every human born into a world of 6 billion (especially in the United States, where we consume five times more than the average human being), it represents the extinction of other species, the decline of our life-support system, and a decline in one of the most important spiritual links with our Creator.12 Few people can study nature and science (the language humanity uses to describe the Creator's work) and not be in a state of awe—nor can they deny the moral consequences of destroying species just for the sake of having their own biological children or grandchildren.
Many religious leaders, scientists, nonprofit organizations, and politicians understand this, but because overpopulation is such an unpopular topic, many won't bring it up for fear of being ostracized by society and even by their own family members. Others are yelling at the top of their lungs over the issue, but the mass media won't report it because it's not an issue that sells advertising. In addition, many members of the wealthy class (owners of the mass media and architects of our current economic system) benefit by overpopulation because it allows them to quickly harvest the environment beyond sustainable means, reduce wages for laborers, and retain more profit for themselves. We must also remember that in today's high-dollar political campaigns and contributions, most politicians really serve Big Business and religious dogma over the common good and science. Population growth also puts tremendous pressure on politicians to create additional jobs at the expense of the environment and humanity's long-term health. The resulting job growth required to sustain this population is an insidious and destructive cycle on a finite planet. If people expect politicians to solve our problems, it's going to be a long and unsuccessful wait. The only time the world has truly advanced in thought has been when individual citizens have made sacrifices for the common good and convinced others to do the same—only then do politicians join the fight. Democracy, the abolishment of slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, and a host of other important issues would not have been or continue to be championed without individual action, leadership, and sacrifice.
Conclusion
All of us must join in this extremely important debate involving our country and the world—especially young adults, because they have the most to lose. As citizens within a democracy, we're obligated to discuss important issues with each other and support candidates and religious leaders that "truly" care about the common good and humanity's "long-term" health. Apathy, denial, avoidance, censorship, hostility, sadness, fear, and a host of other defensive tactics won't solve our overpopulation and wasteful consumption problem nor will they preserve the quality of life on this planet. Humanity and individuals must deal with this issue in an active, responsible, and logical manner.
Please enjoy a courageous song by Jeanie Fitchen...
just click the play button below, close your eyes,
and marvel at her beautiful voice and words of wisdom.
1. Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 1999 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999) p. 8 for the 1900 population data and Katie Mogelgaard, "Six Billion and Counting," Nucleus [Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists] Fall 1999: p. 6 for 2028 and 2054 population data.
2. Negative Population Growth, "Why the U.S. Needs a Smaller Population," E Magazine July/Aug. 1999: p. 17.
3. David C. Korten, When Corporations Rule the World (West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press; San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1995) p. 35.
4. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, 19 September 2005 www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html
5. Earth Policy Institute, 19 September 2005 http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Pop/2004.htm
6. Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 1999, p. 97.
7. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (Washington DC: World Resources Institute, 2005) p. 3.
8. Union of Concerned Scientists, Video Transcript—Keeping the Earth: Scientific and Religious Perspectives on the Environment (Pittsburgh: New Wrinkle, 1996) p. 4.
9. Fertility rate information obtained from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Report WP/98, World Population Profile: 1998, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1999. Information on the environmental impact formula obtained from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS Atlas of Population and Environment (Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 2000) p. 7.
10. National Wildlife Federation, "The Impact of one Child" 19 January 2002 www.nwf.org/population/ipat.html, 19 September 2005 http://web.archive.org/web/20020601213645/www.nwf.org/population/ipat.html
11. Worldwatch Institute, State of the World 1999, p. 97 and Rain Forest Action Network, "Species Extinction: Rain Forest Fact Sheets" 17 September 2005 http://www.ran.org/info_center/factsheets/03b.html
12. Population Connection, "Fact Sheet: Population and the Environment" 19 September 2005 http://www.populationconnection.org/Communications/FactSheets/Pop%20and%20Env%202002.pdf
"Population growth is the primary source of environmental damage."