|
The Population
Bomb Revisited
Two Children per Family are Enough
By Joseph Schouweiler
12/17/07 "ICH"
-- - We are coming upon the fortieth anniversary of “The
Population Bomb.” It’s time to take stock of the situation then
in 1968 and in the years leading up to 2008. There is no
question that the author of the book, Paul R. Ehrllch was wildly
off the mark with some of his forecasts. He predicted massive
famines in the 1970s and 1980s that never materialized; the
Green Revolution pretty much prevented that scenario, at least
temporarily. Many other writers, academicians, scholars,
journalists have been proven wrong over time, but Mr. Ehrlich
seems to have received more than his fair share of criticism and
outright hostility. Perhaps all this castigation and scorn are
unjustified. His predictions might have been premature rather
than completely wrong.
The population bomb has perhaps been delayed instead of defused
and averted. We need to remember that Mr. Ehrlich correctly
predicted the world’s population would continue to outstrip a
nutritionally adequate food supply, although by far less than
what was feared in the late 1960s. Nevertheless, many poor still
go to bed hungry.
For uncounted millennia and until 1800, the human numbers were
under one billion. We hit two billion around 1930 and today we
have over 6.5 billion homosapiens on this planet, an
unsustainable level. There is much discussion these days about
reducing the size of our carbon footprint. What about the number
of those carbon footprints? Certainly on the right, yet even
from the left, insufficient attention is being paid to the need
for first stabilizing and then significantly reducing the
world’s population. This quagmire may not be the number-one
environmental issue at hand, but it will be a critical factor in
our chances for survival. This is particularly true as China and
India, with a billion plus people each, rapidly industrialize.
The already-industrialized countries, especially the U.S.,
deserve substantial blame for their lavish lifestyles. The
United States has about 5% of the world’s population, but
consumes roughly 25% of the planet’s energy resources and
pollutes the world with approximately 50% of its toxic wastes.
At least Australia’s new Labor government has quickly ratified
the Kyoto Protocol; this is an excellent first step.
Implementing it and getting the U.S., China, and India on board
will certainly be a challenge. Clearly a planet with far fewer
people as well as far more earth-friendly economic practices
must become the order of the day, and soon.
According to Achim Steiner, the executive director of the UN
Environment Program, “The human population is now so large that
the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is
available at current consumption patterns”: the very definition
of overpopulation. Today the warning signs are stronger, more
frequent, and more obvious. All major ecosystems are in decline:
a minimum of five percent of original rainforests being
destroyed per decade, according to the World Bank; coral reefs
are dying, species disappearing, petroleum production peaking,
radioactive and chemical wastes spreading, topsoil eroding, and
too few alternative crop varieties are being cultivated.
Saving seeds, engaging in organic agriculture, planting trees,
encouraging more public transportation, adopting more stringent
conservation measures, utilizing alternative energy are all
worthy pursuits that are necessary to ensure the survival of the
human race and our natural world. Nevertheless, without a
considerable drop in the absolute numbers of humans, we as a
species still might not make it past this century. That threat
of ecological collapse on a planetary scale is slightly more
urgent than the inconvenience Western Europe, Japan, South Korea
and other post-industrialized countries might endure if there
are too many retirees and insufficient new workers coming into
the labor force.
If the severity of this approaching disaster is obvious, what is
blocking some effective remedies? It really comes from two
distinct sources: religious fundamentalism and the neo-liberal
economic model of capitalism. Many religious conservatives fancy
themselves as “pro-life.” They are often nothing of the sort.
Besides being adamantly against abortion, these groups are
mostly against contraception, which can save lives from the
scourge of AIDS. A recent study conducted by John Hopkins
University and Columbia University claim that condom use in
Uganda has cut HIV transmission by more than two-thirds.
Most anti-abortion extremists also typically ignore vital issues
such as adequate prenatal care, vaccinations, infant nutrition
programs, domestic violence prevention, detection of DU
contamination in embryos, and pressing environmental issues of
the day; that is every aspect of life is disregarded, except for
the human fetus. Their real agenda is not about fetuses, but
rather control over women’s bodies and lack of choice regarding
when and how many children to bear.
The current obsession with growth, unrestrained free trade, and
rapid industrialization is the modern, capitalist paradigm.
Reduced populations would ultimately cut into sales of large,
profit-driven enterprises. This is something corporate CEOs
fear, at least in the long-term. Yet it is also true that
bureaucratic, one-party states can also prevent responsible
family planning. Romania under Ceausescu is one such example;
access to birth-control devices and information was nearly
impossible during most of his autocratic rule. However, today
the vast majority of vociferous opposition to family planning
services emanates from the right, not the left.
Economic and religious conservatives are increasingly
intertwined. In the past, many moderate Republicans, including
George H.W. Bush, supported Planned Parenthood and similar
organizations. He did that until deciding to pander to the
right-wing core of the GOP in 1980 in exchange for becoming
Reagan’s vice-president. On these matters, the silence from the
corporate media is deafening.
As Bill Moyers stated, our right-wing opponents deserve one
thing at least: a good argument. Few would argue that China has
made spectacular strides in economic development over the past
thirty years. Yet the Chinese are experiencing a widening income
gap and massive environmental degradation as well, which would
have been much worse without their strict one-child policy for
most families.
The total world population will eventually come down. The
numbers could be reduced through war, famine, disease, or
through rational and humane policies and programs. Some of these
are already in place by national governments and various
international organizations. However, adequate funding and
effective outreach remain problematic.
It is morally imperative to have no elements of violence,
coercion, or deception concerning population control. Because of
Indira Gandhi’s policy of forced sterilizations in the mid-1970s
during her emergency rule, national family planning in India was
setback for decades and has only recently gained public support
and funding from the government. While financial incentives may
help, well-designed, properly funded health care and education
programs are the key, especially for women and children.
Well-educated women tend to want smaller families. Population
reduction will be a vital component toward achieving a world
with political freedom, economic prosperity, social justice, and
ecological harmony.
Joseph Schouweiler teaches international studies at Hanyang
University in Seoul, Korea. He can be reached at
josephschouweiler@gmail.com
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
