Why Population Might Not Be The Reason We Are Doomed

Why Population Might Not Be The Reason We Are Doomed

If I had a pound for every time I have seen or heard someone expounding the damning prognosis for mankind that we are doomed because there are too many of us I would have about £20! Don't get me wrong, I think we're doomed too, but the population argument focusses on the wrong part of the equation.

Stay with me for this little bit of maths ....

Total human consumption of resources = population x average consumption per individual

and

Total pollution caused by humans = population x average pollution per individual

I'm guessing that you have figured out my line of argument; while total consumption and total pollution are both increased by population growth, they are also increased by average consumption and pollution per individual.

When someone says there are too many of us, they are actually saying "If I am to maintain my current consumption levels, we're going to have to do something about population levels".

Population control - culling versus plateauing

Let's assume for a minute that the problem is in fact population size. The rational question that any person invested in the long term survival of humanity would ask is "What can we do about it?" and that opens up an ugly array of options. As people are born and people die, we are forced to consider how we can reduce the former and/or increase the latter.

Births and Deaths

The "soft" approach to reducing births will take decades because it involves lifting people out of poverty to give women opportunities outside the home, to provide healthcare, security in old age and less reliance on subsistence farming. Conceptually this is achievable albeit unlikely in my opinion (I'll save that for another post) and clearly from a caring human being perspective it is desirable - a kind of win:win.

The "hard" approach can start today with military support to quell the demonstrations - start sterilisation programmes. Choosing this option and choosing who should be sterilised would be the hard bit. I don't think I would be alone in suggesting that this would not be a world in which I would want to live.

There are a myriad of other solutions, ranging from handing out lots of condoms to killing female babies either before or at birth. But I want to take these two extremes to make the point that without interfering in a morally unacceptable way, it will take decades to reduce births - condoms and sex education only go part of the way. High infant mortality, the need for hands to work on the farm and the requirement to spread the burden of your old age across several children are all factors to be weighed against using condoms!

"Without resources to secure their future, people can rely only on their own families. Thus, when poor parents have lots of children, they are making a rational calculus for survival. High birth rates reflect people's defensive reaction against enforced poverty."

(Chapter 3 of World Hunger: 12 Myths, 2nd Edition, by Frances Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, with Luis Esparza (fully revised and updated, Grove/Atlantic and Food First Books, Oct. 1998)

The "soft" approach to increasing deaths does not exist - we are into withholding medicine and culling (I'm sure we could come up with a far less emotive word) but the reality is increasing deaths leads to a dystopian world in which I would eagerly volunteer my life to escape it!

Plateauing

UN figures suggest that world population growth is slowing very slightly and has been for some time. Population will plateau at about 11 billion people around about the end of the century. That said, if the actual fertility rate is half a child less than predicted, the plateau will be 9 billion by mid century and if it is half a child greater, it doesn't plateau and we are screwed!

When it comes to population control, other than allowing people to choose to have a smaller family, every programme is to some degree abhorrent.

So what we can do about world population amounts to ... not a lot. Allowing the world's population to plateau is the only morally acceptable approach and can be accelerated through genuine development aid to raise the poorer parts of the world out of poverty.

And therein lies the problem. Lifting people out of poverty means they will have more stuff and so, not only does plateauing result in a higher population than say a culling programme, the average consumption and pollution per individual also increases. Both elements of the equations increase to boost total consumption and pollution.

The Second Part of The Equation

Earth overshoot day in 2017 was 2nd August, we passed the point at which the planet had given everything it could sustainably give in 2017 by August 2nd. On that basis, at current consumption and pollution levels per individual, we would need to reduce the population to 4,5 billion people from 7,5 billion currently or reduce the average consumption and pollution levels per individual by 59%.

Let's agree once and for all that we are not going to start culling humans - even Adolph Hitler would have hesitated to kill 3 billion people (maybe) and so the whole issue of population and whether we are doomed becomes one of individual consumption levels.

Maybe there is hope, as soon as leaders of the world become aware of this information, surely they will begin earnestly searching for ways in which they can reduce consumption and pollution (roughly speaking, two sides of the same coin). They will start genuinely investing in poor countries - not for return but for development of those countries in the interest of us all. The resulting programmes do not have to be immoral and we'll be able to buy ourselves the time required for world population to stabilise. For example there is the notion of decoupling growth and resource consumption by creating a circular economy where products are designed for refurbishment and thus multiple life cycles. We could live sustainably with a stable population. Bish, bash, bosh, sorted!

Which brings me to .....

The Reason We Are Doomed

Sadly, we're not going to do it because there is no profit in reducing consumption - it doesn't make sense. Profit arises from consumption of products and services, both of which require the use of resources. There might be profit to be had in reducing pollution but only because we can produce and sell solutions, which will result in further consumption.

Of course, the CEO's of businesses are not evil humans apathetic to the future of their children and grandchildren. They have a job to do; to produce a return on the capital invested in their businesses by the shareholders. Small, one-man-band enterprises are equally bound by the need to return a profit so as to put food on the table, go on holiday and buy their kids the latest games consoles.

We can't expect businesses to do anything other than strive for profit and more profit, that is what they are there to do in a capitalist system. I don't see many corporations leaping towards the circular economy model because he who dares will lose in a price competitive market - yes there may be a small niche market for circular goods but that is not going to solve anything.

Equally, we can't expect our politicians to attempt to reduce consumption by choking spending power because they are voted out of office when people feel worse off and people feel worse off when they are unable to consume as much as they could in the past. Politicians also have to bow to corporate power and again I don't see many corporations pushing for a circular economy.

Perhaps we could expect huge taxation of the very wealthy to reduce their consumption to levels that are only mildly horrifying but that would require a political system where the very wealthy enjoy the same influence as a guy living from pay cheque to pay cheque and when all is said and done, it wouldn't solve the problem anyway.

Who else is there left to do something about individual consumption? Oh yes, the rest of us - the 99.9% of remaining individuals. Can't we simply start cutting back on extravagance.

Ain't gonna happen!

Ever watched a quiz programme on TV like The Chase? Listen to the aspirations of the contestants. They want to win money so that they can consume things that they otherwise wouldn't be able to consume - a holiday abroad, a new car etc. Consider your own response to the question "what would you do with the money if you were to win?" I'm yet to hear someone say "I'm going to donate it all to a charity working to supply clean water to those who are forced to drink foul water in order to give themselves a chance of living" (with the exception of celebrity shows where it wouldn't be appropriate to give celebrities the chance of winning money and no-one else - the only choice open to them is to give the winnings away to charity). Consuming is an aspiration whilst helping our fellow humans - not so much. A bit like a junky when you think about it!

I would suggest that we are all conditioned to consume, necessarily so, from a capitalist system perspective. Without consumers, businesses would not be able to sell things and return a profit to their shareholders. We are trained from birth with treats and rewards and special days like birthdays when we receive things. We are surrounded constantly by advertising - I challenge you to look around the room you are in right now and not see an advert or logo. Watch commercial TV and the stuff you tune in to watch is called "fill", it's there to get you sat down listening to adverts, known as "content". Go to school and peer pressure dictates the need for the latest whatever (in my day it was trainers). When we run out of money to consume, we borrow money and then work flat out to keep on top of the monthly loan payments. A day out for many is window shopping - need I say more!

Capitalist societies offer opportunities for those with capital to grow it by achieving a return on capital invested. This necessarily demands consumption which demands consumers. Creating consumers demands advertising and marketing (if it didn't work they wouldn't do it) and consumers need money which means they'll work flat out for it. A consumption treadmill from cradle to grave - it is our lives.

And there you have it - the reason we are doomed is not that there are too many of us, I fear that we are incapable of reducing our individual consumption to a sustainable level because every capitalist fibre of our personal existence stands in the way. Nothing would make sense - what would be the point of getting up in the morning?

A Footnote

Incidentally my personal overshoot day is Oct 12th and I consider myself to be careful - I don't use aeroplanes, I don't buy presents for people, I only buy local produce, I use an electric scooter for local travel, I carshare or use trains if travelling long distance, I eat meat only occasionally and in small quantities, I grow my own veg in the Summer, I live in a small well insulated apartment, I buy renewable electricity only, I recycle and buy second hand as often as possible and I am still consuming 30% too much for earth to be sustainable if everyone lived like me. Spend 5 minutes and calculate your own overshoot day here.