But back to the topic of overpopulation. If you don't read any of the rest of this post, please at least watch this short video:
Don't believe that? Here's the website where they give more info about what they said. NFPworks also shared this video: check out her two cents.
The recent climate talks spurred more talk about how humans destroy the earth and if we don't change fast, we're all doomed. Now, we can all agree that human activity affects the environment, and we should modify our practices in regards to energy, etc. (Even the Pope agrees! Of course, that's not a huge surprise, as he is all about making the Vatican solar-powered.) But I would like to preempt any arguments blaming "overpopulation." The world is not going to end because there's too many of us. Maybe because of overconsumption, but not overpopulation. And I'll leave it at that and link to Pursuing Titus 2 and Domestic Felicity, who both do a great job pointing out that what is unsustainable is not our population but our consumer culture. Do read them!
What is perhaps funniest to me is that not only is overpopulation untrue, but in fact the opposite is true! The population in many countries, particularly Europe, is actually starting to decline! This is known as the "Greying of Europe." In fact, this is becoming such a concern that some countries are trying to raise their birth rates by providing cash incentives for women to have babies. The only reason this hasn't been reflected stronger in overall population figures is because people are living longer. (With fewer people to pay for their healthcare in old age...)
Replacement level fertility rate is 2.1. Official data from the UN (as of 2007) says "Among the 45 developed countries in the group, total fertility varies between 1.2 and 2.0 children per woman, with only two countries having fertility levels outside that range" (New Zealand with 2.1, Albania with 2.6). Yes, you read that right - all those developed countries are below replacement level. Here's the information in map form (click to enlarge):
The US is right at 2.1. But don't breathe a sigh of relief because we haven't dipped below replacement level. Immigrants are the main thing keeping us growing.
We get most of these numbers from the UN, so I'm not sure why they keep promoting "population control." And as the Vatican wisely pointed out to the UN:
"Unfortunately in some parts of the world today, development aid seems to be tied rather to the recipient countries' willingness to adopt programmes which discourage demographic growth of certain populations by methods and practices disrespectful of human dignity and rights. ... Yet such a practice is by its nature not one of reciprocity but imposition, and to predicate the decision to give development aid on the acceptance of such policies constitutes an abuse of power." (From here)
It's also funny how we Westerners condemn the population control methods in China, but applaud any measures in Africa. (But I'll try not to get into that, because it'll turn towards eugenics, then to Margaret Sanger, and then to Planned Parenthood, and this is already plenty long and link-filled!)
I don't want to sound like doomsday is upon us, because I don't think it is. But sub-replacement fertility is a very real issue. Overpopulation is nothing but a myth. The end.
I wasn't able to cite all the many articles I found. Read the links in the actual post, and then if you're still interested, check these out, too!
- Demographic Winter and Demographic Bomb: I haven't seen either of these films yet, but they look really interesting. Check out the trailers! http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html
- A good number-filled article: http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0502-rhett_butler.html
- The book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits by Steven Mosher looks great. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1412807131/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk
- Here's a review of that book from the Washington Times. If you're not gonna read the book, do read the review! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/27/taking-on-the-overpopulation-myth/
- Fantastic detailed piece on the history of the myth. http://usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03ruse.shtml
Good stuff! I was so excited when I saw the title - I've tried to look up hard facts about why overpopulation is so hyped. But not being a good researcher, I stopped soon after I started. I can't wait to read some of your links.
ReplyDeleteThe CIA tracks yearly changes in birth rates for every country (see CIA World Factbook 2009). Their measure of birth rate is number of births per 1000 people per year. Go to: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html
ReplyDeleteYou can actually see that the US birthrate is lower than China's for 2009. That really means a lot when you figure that China regulates the number of children citizens can have with their "one child policy".
Hmmm,
ReplyDeleteWell overpopulation is no myth.
You need to think globally (population, environment, and carrying capacity are all apathetic about human created borders and boundaries).
Your sources are a bit lacking in critical thinking. Two suggestions:
Wm Catton's "Overshoot" and
www.paulchefurka.ca (perhaps start with his "Elephant in the Room" essay.
Anonymous - Thanks for the link!
ReplyDeleteMikata - I agree that we should think globally. In doing so, the "threat" of overpopulation remains a myth.
I actually thought the sources I referenced were fairly critical, especially since several are simply census facts. I looked into the two you cited. I admittedly skimmed the website; I did not read "Overshoot" (published in 1982), but did read some of the glowing online reviews. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're all about sustainability, and particularly oil. I did not discuss this topic at length here, since two of the other blogs did. They rightly point out that what is unsustainable is our current consumptionist lifestyle, as opposed to people.
In fact, the introduction to "Elephant in the Room" states: "Bringing about a sustainable balance between ourselves and the planet we depend on will require us, in very short order, to reduce our population, our level of activity, or both." This acknowledges that reducing activity level is not necessarily the same as reducing population. And with "sustainability" and "green" as the buzzwords of our times, hopefully we will be able to come up with solutions for how to do this!
You admit that "overconsumption" is a problem. The problem is total consumption, which is a function of per capita consumption times the size of the population. Like most environmentalists, you seem to advocate a reduction in per capita consumption as the solution. But, like those environmentalists, you're forgetting that per capita consumption and per capita employment are inextricably linked. Reductions in per capita consumption to accommodate a growing population is a recipe for rising unemployment and poverty.
ReplyDeleteRampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. I'm not talking about the obvious environmental and resource issues. I'm talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management. Our policies that encourage high rates of population growth are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)
Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"
I appreciate your posting on this. It's all very interesting, but I personally won't touch this issue with a ten foot pole! I'm not quite smart enough, I don't think. But I do enjoy reading others' thoughts on it.
ReplyDeleteAmartya Sen, the Indian economist and nobel winner (though I'm increasingly skeptical of how much a nobel actually indicates, other than the world really likes you), has published about measures for reducing population naturally and without coercion by states.
It's really very interesting. Apparently the biggest coorelation between population rates is the level of literacy of the women in the area. When women are literate and educated, they will naturally have fewer children, and more of the children they have will survive into adulthood.
Teaching women to read is a whole lot more empowering than sticking a pill in their mouth!