Latest posts by Timothy Benson (see all)
- ESAs Provide the Means to Make Dreams a Reality for NH Families - January 8, 2018
- Onward Gaian Soldiers! - January 8, 2018
- Education Savings Accounts Help Kids Most in Need - November 29, 2017
Over the past few years, outlets such as NPR, the Atlantic Monthly, the Huffington Post, and the Guardian have written articles with headlines like “Should We Be Having Kids in the Age of Climate Change?,” “The Climate Change Solution No One Will Talk About,” “Voluntary Birth Control Is a Climate Change Solution Nobody Wants to Talk About,” and “Though Climate Change is a Crisis, the Population Threat is Even Worse.”
The NPR story highlights a 2016 paper by philosophers and bioethicists at Georgetown University and Johns Hopkins University, titled “Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change,” which argues in favor of penalizing families for having children via a progressive tax that would increase with each child.
In his new Netflix series, “Bill Nye Saves the World,” the show’s eponymous host asked a group of panelists, including one of the Georgetown professors, “Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?” The question from Nye, of course, is a rhetorical one. (Strikingly, unlike normal humans, none of the panelists found it creepy and disturbing that Nye said “extra kids.”)
Not content to let Nye hog all that creepiness for himself, ur-feminist Gloria Steinem charged the “patriarchy” with causing climate change by forcing women not to have all those abortions they secretly want, leading to overpopulation and “climate deprivation.” This unfortunately low number of abortions, according to Steinem, is “the fundamental cause of climate change.”
“People around the world are beginning to address [climate change] by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology,” wrote the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). “But unsustainable human population growth can overwhelm those efforts, leading us to conclude that we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet… Long-term population reduction to ecologically sustainable levels will solve the global warming crisis and move us to toward a healthier, more stable, post-fossil fuel, post-growth addicted society.”
After the Census Bureau reported on May 7, 2017, the U.S. population surpassed 325 million people for the first time, CBD, most well-known, if at all, for its Endangered Species Condoms, put out a press release quoting itsObersturmführer — excuse me, its “population organizer” — who said, “Hitting this population record highlights the danger of the Trump administration’s attacks on reproductive healthcare and environmental protections. We’re crowding out wildlife and destroying wild places at alarming rates, and Trump’s reckless actions will worsen the effects of our unsustainable population growth, overconsumption and urban sprawl.”
Doomsday predictions about overpopulation stretch back to Thomas Malthus’ 1798 book, An Essay on the Principle of Population. Because food production only grows arithmetically while population grows geometrically, Malthus reasoned, the planet’s burgeoning population growth would eventually outstrip food supplies, leading to famine and mass starvation. “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race,” he wrote.
Twentieth-century neo-Malthusianism would be taken up by environmentalists after World War II, gaining steam after the publication of Fairfield Osborn’s Our Plundered Planet and William Vogt’s The Road to Survival in 1948. “It is obvious that fifty years hence the world cannot support three billion people,” Vogt wrote. “Unless population increases can be stopped, we might as well give up the struggle.” Vogt was wrong: Seventy years after this forecast, Earth is supporting not merely 3 billion but 7.5 billion people.
Twenty years after Osborn and Vogt, Paul Ehrlich — in his 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb — predicted mass starvation in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation. “The battle to feed all of humanity is over,” he wrote. “In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines –hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash program embarked upon.” These famines and mass human die-offs never materialized.
Doubling down on this, Ehrlich argued in a speech before the British Institute for Biology in 1971 that “by the year 2000, the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people… If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
Fortunately for Britons, Ehrlich is a notoriously bad gambler. (Just ask Julian Simon.) In 2000, the United Kingdom was home to 58 million people with a per-capita gross domestic product of $26,400. At $1.555 trillion in gross domestic product, it was the world’s fourth-largest economy. Even in 2017, Dear Old Blighty continues to be the opposite of the poor and starving world envisioned by Ehrlich in 1971.
The number of people living in “extreme poverty” ($1.90 or less per day) fell below 10 percent for the first time in human history in 2015, according to the World Bank. As David Harsanyi explained in The Federalist, “not only are fewer people living in extreme poverty, but fewer are hungry than ever; fewer die in conflicts over resources, and deaths due to extreme weather have beendramatically declining for a century… Over the past 40 years, our water and air has become cleaner, despite a huge spike in population growth. Some of the Earth’s richest people live in some of its densest cities.”
Indeed, the Earth is cleaner and safer today than at any point in the lifetime of anyone now living. Technology and human ingenuity have dramatically reduced the human impact on the environment. For example, by increasing crop yields (thanks GMOs!), we are growing more food while devoting less land to agriculture. Human innovational and technological advancements have improved both the lot of humanity and the environment.
Population growth is also slowing down dramatically after reaching its peak in 1970.
According to the United Nations, global fertility will slow from 2.5 children per woman in 2015 to 2.0 children in 2050. Eighty-three countries, accounting for 46 percent of the globe’s population, already had below-replacement fertility levels between 2010 and 2015, including Brazil, China, Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United States.
Forty-eight countries are also projected to see their populations decline through 2050. Of these, 11 are expected to see their populations decline by more than 15 percent, including Japan and most of the countries of Eastern Europe. The United Nations projects global population to level off somewhere between 9.5 billion and 13.3 billion around the year 2100 before beginning to drop.
As this short history of failed predictions reveals, prominent environmentalists have been using fears of famine and ecological disaster to promote a population-control agenda for many years. Recent claims that man-made global warming might be yet another disaster to be laid at the feet of population growth are no more credible.
The Club of Rome, in Mankind at the Turning Point, its 1974 doomsday follow-up to 1972’s doomsday book The Limits to Growth, literally says, “The World Has Cancer and the Cancer is Man.” Robert Zubrin, in his book Merchants of Despair, writes “this idea [that] humans are cancer upon the Earth, a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites are endangering the natural order… is the core idea of antihumanism.”
“Antihumanism,” he states, “is not environmentalism, though it sometimes masquerades as such. Environmentalism, properly conceived, is an effort to apply practical solutions to real environmental problems, such as air and water pollution, for the purpose of making the world a better place for all humans to thrive in. Antihumanism, in contrast, rejects the goals of advancing the cause of mankind. Rather, it uses instances of inadvertent human damage to the environment as point of agitation to promote its fundamental thesis that human beings are pathogens whose activities need to be suppressed in order to protect a fixed ecological order with interests that stand above those of humanity.”
The call for population-control measures to fight climate change is at its core, anti-human. As Zubrin continues, “Since all human activity must perforce release [carbon dioxide], all human existence is a crime against nature. Therefore nothing we can do is right — and so, in the name of the Higher Good, we must be constrained to do as little as possible. Thus, the global warming argument recasts the basic Malthusian line in a novel form, but with the equivalent end result. Instead of claiming that human activity must be limited because there are not enough resources, it is said that what is limited is not resources, but the right to use resources. It all amounts to the same thing: there isn’t enough to go around, therefore human aspirations must be crushed.”
The Armageddon scenarios put forward by climate change alarmists are greatly exaggerated. Even if global population growth had not slowed, the human impact on climate has simply been too small to reliably measure against background variation. As long as human beings know how to innovate and apply those innovations to technology, “overpopulation” will never be a significant issue. Fear of climate change has, unfortunately, already led to the adoption of a plethora of taxes, regulations, and subsidies aimed at reducing carbon emissions. It doesn’t need to lead to population control as well.
[Originally Published at American Thinker]