While it is true that there are limits to how many people the planet can sustain, population is not the current biggest threat to the planet. Industry, war and consumption are. People in the industrialised world are creating most of the world’s pollution and are using a much larger share of the world’s resources than indigenous populations are.
Assuming world-wide peacetime, if we stayed at the current population, and gave everyone in the world what we have; all of the same commodities, values, and habits of people in the developed industrialised countries, our world would be much worse off, if not doomed. On the other hand, if people lived more sustainable lives, or lives closer to lives of pre-industrial communities, theoretically at least, the limit to population would be higher. In reality, these populations are more self-limiting, because they rely more on local trade and resources.
Brazil’s Bolsonaro has a point when he says that the rest of the world has reaped the benefits of destroying its own resources, yet wants to prevent them from doing the same. He does represent foreign domination over indigenous populations, and I do not, in any way support what he is doing, but bring it up as an example of hypocrisy by Western interests, which pave the way for themselves to exploit resources around the world, while telling others that they cannot, or should not do the same.
Industrialised nations have done more to upset the balance of nature around the world than most indigenous communities. They are still imposing their systems, beliefs and values, grabbing up land and resources, uprooting communities, and changing the way things are done through the processes of proselytism, colonialism, regime change, war, and economic contingencies and incentives. Citing population as the greatest threat to the world is often an argument used to rouse derision and scorn against poor people, immigrants, and people in Third World countries. The argument goes that, helping them will just encourage them to have more children. The idea of overpopulation touches on the fear of those who have everything, that one day they will have less, because they will have to share, even though they are currently benefiting from others having to share, often in an unequal way.
Odder still, you find forces from Western sources vying to influence other cultures with opposing objectives. There are those who wish to impose population control onto other people, those who want to offer family planning and education, and those who want to enforce their religious and moral limitations. It almost makes one wonder why some people in the West care so much about what other people are doing. You can even find the same politicians (in America) calling on women to do their duty and have more babies, while at the same time, advocating building a wall to keep foreigners out, following the ideology of “Us” vs “Other”.
Fertility rates in industrialised countries are so low that many countries are trying to offer incentives to have more children. To maintain high standards of living, those economies need population stability or growth, either from within, or from others buying into it. How can you move up if there aren’t people underneath? This generation is paying for the last, and the next is expected to take care of this one.
Democracies cannot ethically force birth control on populations at home or abroad, without repercussions. While they could offer incentives to parents to have more or fewer children, the public would not accept government imposing something like China’s one-child policy. One of the strongest factors affecting birth rates and economic growth is female education. When girls and women are given better education and a chance to contribute and benefit from the economy, they are more likely to delay child bearing and have fewer children. They are also less likely to be dependent on the State.
The modern world has many great things to offer, but it is not likely the “one size fits all” model that we make it out to be. We should not delude ourselves into thinking that we have nothing to learn, or that other ways don’t have value. We are very lucky, to live in a time where we have access to learning and sharing solutions for all sorts of problems, with people around the world. Giving people the help they need and want could often be better than imposing our ideas on them. For example, with the issue of introducing new crops, rather than helping develop improved methods for well-established ones. We can lead by example in developing and using sustainable resources, and by making them more available and affordable to others, rather than telling others not to do as we have done. We can also lead by example, in undoing what has been done in the past. Both Ireland and Iceland have acknowledged the wide-scale destruction of forests by their ancestors and have made commitments to restore ancient woodlands.
If we could help other countries achieve more peace and stability, it would go a long way to solving other problems that affect us, such as immigration. As long as our ethos continues to lack respect for others, and to be driven by mindsets of knowing what’s best for everyone else, and “more for us”, we will continue to be a source of the problems we face.
We share this world. Isn’t it time for us to take responsibility ourselves, rather than telling people in other parts of the world that it is their responsibility to have fewer children, that they are to blame, they are responsible, and they should change?
&uuid=(email))