Over at Growth is Madness! John Feeney notes that both population and consumption growth are significant problems in our world. In a previous post he highlighted the relationship in terms of fossil fuel use which, since it is easily and quite fairly determined by the product of population size and per capita consumption, directly involves both elements. If either one increases, the product increases proportionally. Simple math that anyone can understand.
In the comments on the most recent post Population and consumption: both major players, John remarks that we should “work to break down the ridiculous taboo that has arisen concerning population” — a comment that made me pause. It was a while before I understood what he was getting at. Population growth, or rather speaking of population growth as a problem, is taboo in many circles — really. Silly me, for a moment I had forgotten that. From time to time I go off into this strange space where everyone thinks like I do.
Perhaps it is wishful forgetting because I find it hard to face people who believe the population of the world can simply keep increasing without end. I tend to assume that all rational people see what I see as the obvious problem with a monotonically increasing function of population growth in a finite world. Isn’t it as simple as “more people means less world per person”? At some point the amount of world-per-person is too little to sustain the person. In spite of fancy terms like monotonically increasing function, isn’t this fundamental relationship between number of living beings and the fixed space in which they live obvious — and I mean just on the face of it?
I guess not. That is, not for a lot of people — a lot of people who have votes and therefore a say in the world in which I live.
Turns out, when I force myself to consider the vast range of opinion of my fellow citizens, there are many who don’t want to talk about real, I would say critical, population issues. For some, the entire notion of over-population is something that happens in developing countries, so it does not have any immediate impact on their lives. To the extent that it may — “may” — be happening in America it is an immigration problem.
For another somewhat overlapping group, population growth is nothing but a good thing. It means more babies and babies are innately good — just that simple. And babies start at conception not birth, so any talk of abortion or — good heavens! — family planning is bad. Anyone who proposes that in general fewer babies might be a good thing must be inherently evil or at least under the influence of the dark side.
Here is part of the issue and the disconnect between me and those other people:
Pass a baby to me and I’ll be delighted to hold it, to love it, to feed it, to play with it, to change it’s diapers. I don’t have a problem with a real, live baby. They are wonderful, delightful. Nearly all human beings have this same response. But we need to have a conversation about population control — in the best sense of the term, in the sense of saving ourselves as a civilized people, in the sense of all living people having an opportunity, just one fair shot, at living good lives on this finite planet.
So while I’ll be happy to be a loving caretaker of your new baby, I can also — while still being a good person, especially so — be hopeful that you won’t have more than two babies, because I care about the babies to come, because I want all babies to have a chance at living a good and decent life on our very real, which means limited, planet.
“So while I’ll be happy to be a loving caretaker of your new baby, I can also — while still being a good person, especially so — be hopeful that you won’t have more than two babies, because I care about the babies to come, because I want all babies to have a chance at living a good and decent life on our very real, which means limited, planet.”
That about sums it up. It’s amazing to me how many people dismiss the population issue for reasons they think reflect their own compassion and fairness. Just last night I was flamed on Alternet for presenting the same equation I did in that post (E=Pxe). Apparently two (!) other commenters automatically assumed I was pushing a racist, anti-immigrant agenda. (I had responded under the comment of someone who referred population growth and to a problem with excessive immigration.) I had to patiently explain that I was as pro-immigrant as they were, but that I also recognized a simple logic in the argument that we’ve already sustained a lot of environmental degradation and that indefinite population growth would simply lead us into serious trouble. This, while pointing out as well that I recognized our contribution to the problem as well as the global aspects, etc. I even suggested I’d be fine with stabilizing US population purely through a reduction in fertility rate, but that some experts didn’t think that was feasible. But still, I was met with great suspicion.
I guess I’m just saying it’s an uphill battle. There’s a group in the womens’ studies department at Hampshire College which pushes the notion that concerns over population growth are anti-womens’ reproductive rights. I think that’s so misguided. A *majority* of the best, more humane ways I’ve heard of for reducing fertility rates revolve around *empowering* girls and women so that they have more choices in life than simply having large families. Anyway, one of these days I’m going to really read up on the history of how the population topic became taboo. It’s a fascinating, frustrating subject, eh?
I think that’s a fabulous idea to investigate how population became a taboo subject. Go for it.
It’s very hard to have an intelligent, respectful, inquiring conversation about any of several topics (e.g. population growth, immigration, abortion, religion, the meaning of patriotism, socialism, capitalism, sex). It can be difficult enough face-to-face with someone you know, but when it’s through writing on the Internet in a group of dozens where each has their own set of hot buttons and assumptions it’s often impossible.
Are you familiar with the work of Marshall Rosenberg? http://www.cnvc.org/mrbio.htm
Quote: “For another somewhat overlapping group, population growth is nothing but a good thing. It means more babies and babies are innately good — just that simple. And babies start at conception not birth, so any talk of abortion or — good heavens! — family planning is bad. Anyone who proposes that in general fewer babies might be a good thing must be inherently evil or at least under the influence of the dark side.”
- —
You’ve got it. This is the true nature of “the population control taboo”. All humans are used to believing in every person’s natural right to produce as many children as one wants to do. That there can never be any question about that. And if there seems to be a question about that, well: “Annie, get your gun!”
There are certain issues that individual persons should not be too certain about. And if they are certain – dead certain – they should, to the very least, take care and never talk about the problem. As a token of social respect, if nothing else. ‘Cause there are certain things we – The Big We – simply do not want to know. And this is no lie.
For crying out loud: The problem of population control / family planning actually raises a question of God’s good judgement; when The Creator created women with the opportunity to give birth to as many as twenty children during a lifetime (or more: consider the possibility of twins and triplets), … “However could this be wrong?”
And this is not only a problem that Catholics and other Christian groups would consider. Oh, not at all! A taboo is a taboo because it’s a question raised that concerns natural facts of life; not only to some people, but to every man and woman born, anywhere.
I hear you, Magne. Recently the mere mention of “scrotum” in a childrens’s book (in the sense of “the snake bit the dog in the scrotum”) has caused a little firestorm here in the states. When we can’t say “scrotum” how can we begin to talk about family planning? On the positive front I know parents whose young children know the propper words (e.g. “penis,” “vagina,” “vulva,” “scrotum,” “testicles”) for their anatomy. In Florida a woman objected to a theater marquee announcing the “Vagina Monologues,” and they briefly changed it to the “HooHaa Monologues” before coming to their senses (with the added legal push of play titles shall be play titles) and changing it back.
But to your point, there are some very vocal Christian groups in the US who believe contraception and family planning in general are immoral, groups that these days have the power to affect US foreign policy. So we have the effect that US policy in Africa, a continent rife with AIDS says — at best — we don’t believe in condoms. Just insane.
Yes indeed.
Africa does not need the USA to buy condoms for it, I am reasonaly certain that they are smart enough to figure it out for themselves. And AIDs is hardly a population problem (although obviously a humanitarian issue).
Terje, just an aside since I know you will appreciate the irony:
I believe the only two remaining condom manufacturers in the USA are in Alabama and a mainstay of their business is US government aide contracts that mandate, by law, that condom we ship as part of foreign aid must be made in the USA. One of the Alabama senators has made this his personal project (for more than a decade) to protect the 400 or so jobs provided by those two companies.