Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 19, 2015
Politics, pollution and “overpopulation”
As an Environmental Studies and International Relations (IR) major (probably), I’ve discovered that there are a few topics you’re bound to encounter in almost any class that addresses the politics of the environment. One of these topics is “overpopulation.”
In my Introduction to International Relations class last semester, we read one of the articles that helped kick off the environmental conservation movement, Garrett Hardin’s, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” published in 1968. Hardin’s argument is that individuals act independently and rationally to serve their own interests, and consequently deplete common resources, such as grazing land, water supplies, etc.
Hardin’s article remains relevant to many environmental problems today, such as wildlife and water conservation. But what my IR professor — and my AP Environmental Science teacher in high school, who also taught Hardin’s theory — glossed over was Hardin’s stance on population control. He believed that overpopulation was a serious threat to the Earth’s ability to sustain life, and promoted solutions such as forced sterilization targeted at what he deemed scientifically inferior populations and races of women who just wouldn’t stop having babies.
Hardin didn’t leave his troubling idea behind after 1968. His final book, The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia, published in 1999, addresses the threat of overpopulation and calls for forceful restrictions on “unqualified reproductive rights.” Oh, and he says that affirmative action is a form of racism.
I notice that Hardin’s convoluted, racist ideas influence the views of my peers in subtle ways. In many of my Environmental Studies and IR classes at Tufts, overpopulation is discussed as an environmental issue, when the real issue seems to be about overconsumption.
We know that we currently produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet, yet so much is wasted and unjustly distributed. If a couple living in Niger produces eight children, but none of those children have access to heat, running water, transportation or enough food, why are we concerned with the “environmental impact” of their fertility rate? Instead, we need to discuss how we can reduce the environmental impact of the American family of four living in a large suburban house, owning three cars and eating meat every day, as well as how we can improve living conditions for the family in Niger.
One method proven to improve living conditions is educating and empowering women. In communities and countries where women are given broader education opportunities, work opportunities and reproductive rights, employment rates increase, the infant mortality rate decreases and population growth often slows down.
Furthermore, population growth has already slowed significantly over the past few decades: estimates of population growth rates have been much too high. So the question is not, “How do we deal with a world population of 7 billion and growing?” but, “How do we make our global system more equitable?” Because let’s face it: we haven’t been feeding or serving our entire population for centuries.
And yet, we cannot afford to have everyone living like upper-middle-class Americans. If everyone in the world drove cars as much as Americans do, we would probably experience catastrophic effects of climate change within a few years. Instead of addressing how to curb growth in developing countries, we need to drastically reduce consumption among rich people in developed countries so that developing countries have the room to satisfy basic needs.
If my professors want to keep teaching Hardin’s article, so be it. But we need to change the way we talk about population control as an “environmental” effort, when it has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with justifying the developed Western world’s rampant consumption and global domination.
11 Comments on "Politics, pollution and “overpopulation”"
Plantagenet on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 11:07 am
You have to laugh when a wealthy college student attending a private university where tuition and fees top $50k per year starts criticizing middle class Americans and calling for redistribution of wealth.
Calling for population control isn’t “racist”—its only common sense in a world where we are facing inescapable limits to further growth.
Jerry McManus on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 1:57 pm
Twisting oneself into a pretzel of non-sequiturs, misrepresentations, misconceptions, and outright willful blindness in a futile attempt to be politically correct when discussing population, as this author appears to be doing, is a colossal waste of everyone’s time.
It’s breathtaking how many fallacies can be packed into so few paragraphs.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending over consumption by bloated Americans, far from it, but to glibly dismiss 7-billion-going-on-9-billion people as “not a problem” is so unbelievably moronic it gives stupid people everywhere a bad name.
Davy on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 2:22 pm
Jerry, I second your comment.
Bob Owens on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 2:52 pm
Amazingly, I agree with everyone’s comments here. People have never controlled their numbers and never will. All the efforts put into birth control have done, basically, nothing to stop population growth. Birth control has been used to space babies, not reduce their numbers. The shame is that population control is the easiest, most productive tool we have to solve one of man’s biggest world problems. Solving the population problem also reduces the pressure on all our other world problems. World population will continue to be totally out of control until Nature redresses the balance.
kiwichick on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 5:23 pm
@ bob
your comment is absolutely wrong
my great grandmother had 11 or 12 children
my grand mother had 4
my mother had 2
I had 3 ( but with what I know now wish I had stopped at 2 )
my daughter will probably have 2
where women have the ability to choose, most choose to stop at two and the result, so far is that global population growth has slowed from over 2% per year to approximately 1% now, with every possibility that it will continue to slow, if for no other reason than the probability that the death rate will start increasing.
one of the factors will be the increasing numbers of baby boomers reaching the end of there lives
Davy on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 6:02 pm
Kiwich, your mention on population growth declines is good news but too late to help much with 7BIL plus people in an overshoot situation. The foundational elements of BAU namely the elaborate financial system and the oil that powers it and the economy are in decline because of limits and diminishing returns.
The Time frame and the severity of this decline is debatable. The research I have read shows that population stabilization you allude to will not happen in time to mitigate an overshoot situation for us 7BIL humans. The scale of the overshoot potential is so great there is little chance that population will naturally decline to a level in balance with a finance and oil complex in decline.
I mention finance instead of the economy because it is finance that provides the confidence, trust, and liquidity to allow a global economy. It is oil that allows the financial system the energy to allow the economy to produce with energy.
Kiwich I cannot find anything that will overcome this overshoot situation with BAU’s foundational elements in decline. I don’t even know what word to use besides overshoot. Overshoot fits the situation so well. I don’t think a nicer word would do the situation we are in justice.
The important thing for us here is time frame. I am thinking 3-5-10 years or something before we have a real crisis situation. The GFC of 2008 was a blip compared to what is coming. I am pretty sure 10 years max because of the oil brick wall. I really hope someone will prove me wrong. I do not have a sick death wish for all of us. I am deeply worried about my kids and their future. I want nothing more than to be proved wrong.
Here is a good population link if you are interested: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
Makati1 on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 8:22 pm
Over population in any species is handled by mother nature eventually. I see the rate of increase declining, but it will not happen in time to save the pain coming soon. A collapse of the very fragile world economy will bring down the JIT system we have set up to maximize profits. Gone will be more food, meds, fuels, etc. than some believe. Especially in the Western world.
Just a slowdown in Cali by the dock workers is causing pain already in countries and business’. Food stuffs rotting on the docks or in the ships to be unloaded, waiting at sea for weeks. Parts missing that are shutting down factories in the Us. What happens when the docks shut down permanently? The Us imports 20% of it’s food now. And exports grain that keeps farmers in business. More frequent polar vortex events in the eastern Us every winter. Floods. Droughts.
How fast? Hmmm. Were I a betting man, I would bet significant collapse before 2016 and total by 2020. I hope I am wrong and it is much farther out, but … it could be tomorrow.
Davy on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 9:22 pm
Mak, you forgot to mention the consequences of the U.S. food exports not being exported to Asia. Funny how you selectively leave out details. Food insecurity will bring down Asia pretty quick.
dubya on Thu, 19th Feb 2015 11:14 pm
Ah yes, humans; the Chosen SPecies
http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/urban-times-reflections-st-matthew-island/
Makati1 on Fri, 20th Feb 2015 1:16 am
Actually, Davy, most of the food imports in the supermarkets here are from Asia, not the Us. Some I eat from all of the nations of the world these days. Whomever is cheapest.
I have noticed that American imports are disappearing from the store shelves here because they are becoming too expensive. A fallout of the temporarily strong USD. There is no indication that Filipinos will be starving in the near future. Their diet will just go back to Filipino foods and the obese will slim down. Ditto for the other Asian nations. And there is little energy needed to get corn from Thailand to the Ps. Less than 1,000 miles vs the 10,000 miles across the Pacific to the UFAS.
Davy on Fri, 20th Feb 2015 6:48 am
Mak, come on and get out of your denial. The US and Brazil are a major source of the foundational elements of the food chain in Asia. You want to diminish this fact and hold the belief that Asia can survive with its 4BIL people in an area smaller than Russia an end of BAU. This is absurdity and why your agenda is so flawed. I fully recognize the nearness of a US collapse I am just not in denial that any US collapse will be a global collapse. You live in a Asian bubble of denial. This is not isolated it is with every piece of BAU news. Your Asian bubble view is problems are caused with the developed west. Asia and Russia can destroy the US with no threat of MAD. Mak, I guess this is what I need to prepare for in 20 years. The hardened synapsis of the brain causing senility.