You are here:   Columns >  On the Contrary > Gannet Earth


Print media may not have the clout of yore, but most Americans are still eager to talk to the New York Times.  Yet strikingly, in last month's "Breaking a Long Silence on Population Control", Mireya Navarro reported that most environmental groups contacted for the article "generally declined to discuss the issue or did not return calls". 

Back when Paul Ehrlich was forecasting reproductive Armageddon in 1968, slowing world population growth was a chief green cause. But when Western fertility rates unexpectedly plummeted, while those in the developing world remained high, population as an issue got awkward. Even organisations specifically dedicated to lowering population growth played down support of family planning per se, cloaking their rhetoric largely in terms of improving "women's rights", which roughly correlate with fewer births — thus reducing the prime directive of the UN Population Fund to a quiet little knock-on effect.

Rising population is a magnifier of every environmental issue out there —biodiversity, energy, water table and fish stock depletion, deforestation, pollution and climate change. Stubbornly high growth rates in countries like Niger and Yemen also exacerbate economic inequality, for poor, high-fertility nations cannot keep up with the ever-rising demand for jobs, education and healthcare. So why, for liberally-minded greens, has population grown so toxic?

Simple: it was all very well to plead for us to have smaller families; pleading for them to curtail fertility smacks — of imperialism. Environmentalists thrive on the appearance of self-excoriation — we are too numerous, we are destroying Mother Earth — although, in the movement's holier-than-thou parlance, we means you. But it's no fun feeling loftier than destitute people halfway round the world. Sanctimony only gratifies when one feels more righteous than the neighbour next door. If poverty is entrenched by excessive breeding too, low-growth advocates are in danger of seeming to blame the poor for their plight, and to put the onus on the weakest to ameliorate problems that weren't of their making. It doesn't seem fair.

View Full Article
December 7th, 2011
6:12 PM
Old Karl, you'd do well to start from the world as you find it, and seek solutions to actual problems from there. Imagine I am a Bangladeshi married woman; my husband supports me and any children we may have on an static income sufficient at most to feed five people. How many children can I afford to have? Do the sum. Oh wait, you advise me to emigrate to the UK, thus helping to achieve a de facto redistribution of wealth? But I see a queue has formed - by the time I get to the front (there are millions ahead of me) the UK will have little left to offer me, I fear.

Old Karl
December 2nd, 2011
11:12 PM
"Population is also an existential concern" - no you mean it's a pseudo-existential concernm for those far too flabby to ever worry about the very real "existential concern" of survival. It's always the "other's' fault when it comes to right-wing demagogues, isn't it? You fail to mention the primarily western multinational corporations that have been gnawing away at the Amazon rainforest. You also fail to mention how corporatisation of the fishing industry in the US, has led to severe over-fishing which has a knock on effect around the world (same with Europe, although, having raped our own seas, we are now making deals with African countries to overfish their coasts). You also seem completely ignorant of the fact that it is through the constant demand of western capitalism that our resources are being depleted. But you, blame poor people, Bangladeshis, immigrants and all the usual xenophobic cliches portrayed by neo-Malthusian obscurantists. Western capitalism has been like a cancer, spread to the four corners of the Earth by way of Western empires, spreading war, exploitation (of people as well as the environment and resoruces). Yet you blame 'them', those shadowy, indistinct "others". If you want to qualify what the problem looks like, look in the mirror.

Post your comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.