There Is Nothing Wrong With Trying To Reduce The Population And Here Is Why
The topic of overpopulation is sensitive. It strikes right at the core of humanity, our reproduction patterns and our mere existence. Commonly, anyone communicating about reducing population sizes encounter defensiveness and even aggressiveness. I’ve put together the most common misconceptions anyone daring to talk about this subject might hear. I’m also trying to explain why every one of them is wrong. Hopefully, it will make your discussions with others more comfortable, or even turn you into an advocate of reducing the population size.
Let’s get right to it, then.
It’s racist.
A common misconception is that those who want to limit birth rates wish to do that in developing countries only. If people in developed countries took this stance, I would mean you had to do nothing at home. If you look at birth rates, it’s understandable why you might have this misconception. Birth rates in developing countries are way higher than in overdeveloped counties. It makes sense to focus our efforts here? No. The struggles against overpopulation looks at people in overdeveloped countries as well. A person living in an overdeveloped country puts much more strain on our shared resources than his or her friend living in a developing country.
There’s lots of space.
A common response one might get when talking about overpopulation is that more than enough space for everyone to fit. If you for example ever fly over the US you might think like this while looking at the wast areas were no-one seems to live. Overpopulation is not about space, though, it’s about resources. It’s about making sure that we can provide everyone with access to clean water, food, fresh air and raw materials.
The fact is, even though it might not look like it, that the US is already overpopulated. The resources available in the US supports one-third of the current population, also though technically a lot more people would fit.
But who will take care of the boomers?
A statement I hear from time to time is that we need to increase our population, not the other way around. The reasoning behind it is that we need people who pay tax and grow our economy to support those who retire. I can’t say it’s wrong. The way things work at the moment is that we need to become more abundant in numbers than the last generation. Unfortunately, if we keep focusing on growing everyone is going to be far worse off. Because we’re already overpopulated, adding more to the numbers is going to make things worse.
It’s like going for a drink to keep the hangover away, it might work for a while, but eventually, it’s going to bite you in the ass.
Technology will save us.
Some older calculations of the number of people the earth could support were pretty low. The humanity managed to blast through those predictions, mainly by inventing the artificial fertiliser and the pesticide. With the use of new technology, we were able to feed more people using the same area of land.
If we’ve been able to defy the predictions before by applying technology, why can’t we continue to do it? The reason is that it’s precarious. If we go down this path, we depend on a new invention with the same impact of artificial fertiliser to save us. A team or an individual might come up with such a design, but we don’t know for sure.
Avocates of a smaller population doesn’t let luck decide the future; they want to take the matter into their own hands.
It’s not about overpopulation; it’s about overconsumption.
This one is pretty common. It comes in various forms but goes something like this: We can be as many people as we want on this planet as long as everyone doesn’t consume too much. Let’s have a quick look at this. First off, there isn’t a single example of a community that voluntarily has lowered their standard of living. It doesn’t mean that some people are off the hook for reducing their consumption, but solely depending on it is too farfetched not to mention risky.
The other reason why it’s not true has to do with how much we would need to restrain ourself. It is possible for everyone alive right now to live within the boundaries of the planet, but it would require a lot. And by a lot, I mean very little. The resource use per person would have to be unimaginably minuscule. No far away travelling, no meat, very few pieces of clothing, tiny housing and so on. It’s not feasible.
It’s about the distribution of resources.
One could argue that there are enough resources for everyone; it’s just that we don’t distribute those evenly. I think most of us agree that sharing is caring and that if we could, we should end suffering. So let’s say we managed to give everyone equals standards of living, by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. We would still be using the same amount of resources, which means that overpopulation is not a distribution resource.
We could strive for allowing everyone the same possibilities, but we have to do it within the boundaries of the planet.
It’s not about overconsumption; it’s about overpopulation.
One other statement I’ve heard is that if we just lower the number of people on earth, we don’t need to do anything about our standard of living. Almost exclusively, this kind of message comes from people living in overdeveloped parts of the world. And I get the reasoning behind it, which goes like this: If the number of people over there was less, I could continue my life as is. I could still have my enormous house, my cars and all the standards I’ve learned to like.
Those promoting a smaller population looks at things differently though. What we are saying is that, if we lower our impact, we can let others rise and make a better life for themselves.
The Anti Overpopulation movement wants to kill people.
You see this thing from time to time in fiction; the evil mastermind has figured the overpopulation issue out. By getting rid of a lot of people, he or she can save the humanity; — an evil deed which is motivated by the higher good.
Maybe fiction is where the myth comes from, or it comes from somewhere else. However, it is a myth. Those who are against overpopulation wants to fix the issue humanely using public education but also by empowering women. A growing number of people today are choosing not to have any kids, or stopping at one or two, for the sake of the planet. They would never have made such decision without knowing what’s at stake.
The anti overpopulation movement wants to force people into not having kids.
So you want to limit the population? That means you want to stop women from having as many kids as they want and take away their freedom? Well, that’s something you would need to do if people were stupid. In general, though, people are pretty smart. When you believe people are intelligent, you trust every one of them to make the right decision.
In this case, making the right decision means having fewer kids.
There is nothing we can do about it.
Even if you agree that limiting the population size is part of the equation to save to earth, the task might feel daunting. How are you supposed to change the path of something this big that is set in motion and will there be enough time?
First of all, let’s say right now every family on earth adopted a one-child policy. It would only take two generations before the planet ended up with a sustainable population. Additionally, there are lots of examples of communities that have managed to lower the population size humanely.
We need more people so that we can come up with a solution.
So if people got us into this situation, don’t we need people to get us out of it as well? The idea behind this myth is that we need more human beings, not less. People who promote this concept tells us that any day the earth might be blessed with a super mind, who is going to solve our problems.
The fact is that we already know what the solution is, and now it’s time to apply it. The answer is a combination of contraceptives, education, empowerment of women and a lot of other things. Unfortunately, at this point, increasing the population is only going to make matters worse.
It will kill the economy.
So, if we decrease in numbers, won’t our economy decrease in size as well? Thus a lot of things we take for granted today will be gone? The simple answer to both of those question is; yes. There is a connection between the size of our population and the size of our economy. There are some exceptions to this, like the fact that you technically could grow an economy while decreasing the community, but it’s safe to say that this would be extremely hard.
Anyone promoting smaller populations are aware of the fact that the economy is going to take a hit if they get as they want. They are also mindful of what will happen if we continue to grow. It comes down to two options. Either decrease the population and suffer during the transition or don’t and suffer eternally on a destroyed planet.
We are deciding between a soft and a hard landing, and we chose the former.
It’s going to solve itself.
The standard of living almost everywhere on the earth on the rise. With rising standards comes lower birthrates. Therefore you could argue that we already are heading in the right direction. There is nothing we have to do about overpopulation.
Well, it’s true that if we do nothing, our numbers are going to stop increasing at some point, and start to decline shortly after. What you have to take into account, though, is that we need to reduce our numbers right now.
There is not enough time to let the current way of running the business to take care of overpopulation.
Conclusion
I’ve written about common misconceptions about trying to reduce the population. Hopefully, I’ve made things more transparent and managed to debunk most of the myths. Do you agree with my statements? Please let me know in the comments section below.
