The Population Bomb
By Brian
Lindquist
Thomas Malthus [1766-1834] warned
us 208 years ago. The doubling of population in 28-35 years would eventually
deprive the population in general of equal access to the benefits of the natural
resource base. Malthus was a nationalist and a racist. His proposed solutions to
the problem were unacceptable. He was wrong about everything except the
population “explosion.”
Our natural resource base has been built over the
last 2.5 billion [plus] years. The Industrial Revolution and population
explosion of the last 200 years has used up most of the prior accumulation.
Trees, fish, petroleum and soil have been seriously depleted. As population and
consumption increase, coal, natural gas and the mineral base will be in a
similar place soon.
Agriculture is the most
critical of our present concerns. The demographers at the United Nations tell us
our agriculture can provide 2200 calories/day for 6 billion people. Current
population is 6.559 billion. We can increase food production somewhat, at great
expense and for a short time. If we do not concurrently reduce our population we
will outrun our capacity to solve this --- “our most basic
problem.”
Our agricultural land
mass and therefore productive capacity, is finite. The U.N. demographers also
tell us 500 million people is a sustainable world population. This is
approximately 8% of our current numbers. The popular opinions regarding
solutions, while intuitive and helpful are almost universally incorrect.
Disease, war, famine, pestilence and natural disasters do kill large numbers of
people. Threatened populations compensate. The second world war is the best
example I can cite. The population trend during the “great”
depression of the 1930’s was upward. The bloodiest war in history caused a
slight slowing but the population continued upward. By the late 1940’s the
post war baby boom was at full tilt.
Training, education, increased standard of
living, widespread birth control information and distribution, are all good
ideas and deserve great effort. We haven’t the time to use these
modalities to reduce our “footprint” on this earth, with one
exception, which will be discussed further on. Some will say, “technology
will save us. It always has and it always will “! In the grand sense, it
is impossible to develop enough new farmland to keep up with the population
growth. The remarkable technological advances of the last 200 years have had a
soporific effect. However, our history shows us just how vulnerable we really
are. In 1883 Mt. Krakatoa filled the stratosphere with enough particulate to
produce “volcanic winter” for two years in a row. The people of
North America and Europe suffered widespread deprivation and death. Weather
perturbations in recent times have produced drought in Sub-Saharan Africa. The
images of suffering and death are all too
familiar.
The question is, can we
change, world wide, to avert the inevitable? Humankind is and has been flexible
and accommodating. China adopted a one child per family policy. Mormons engaged
in plural marriage, polygamy. Tibetans and other people in the Himalayas
practice polyandry. Tribal societies practiced group marriage successfully for
millions of years before the nuclear family was imposed by the requirements of
slave production. In the 1600’s crop failure in northern Europe caused
people to engage in infanticide and cannibalism to save themselves. In recent
times couples have decided to limit the size of their families when deprivation
would result. The “can-do” spirit will save
us.
Solution to our “greatest
problem” will require the cooperation of the religious orders. Christians,
Moslems and Hindus represent a very large fraction of the human population. The
interests of religions large and small will not be served by mass deprivation
and starvation. Natural disasters, volcanoes, floods, hail storms, pests,
blight, even small weather perturbations will result in great declines in the
major religious populations. They have the greatest vulnerability to decline
from starvation.
As the question of
population enters the “dialogue,” the nationalists [read fascists],
will offer that we are the only people who matter; we are the strongest and we
are the most productive. We are entitled to thrive, even at the expense of the
rest of the world. It should be evident since 9-11 that this attitude increased
our vulnerability. Fascists typically identify differences in others. Race,
religion, location and culture are the usual areas of difference. Demonizing and
attacking the others is the scenario when those people will not give up their
wealth, natural and/or produced. The fascists will also promise a
“leveling off” of population some time in the future, and refer to
it by comparison with a “bell curve.” Any mathematician or
demographer who has “run the numbers” will tell you this is a
lie.
In the other direction, we hear that an
egalitarian society that addresses maldistribution is what is needed; and no
further action need be taken. This is specious. We do not have enough farmland
to support a continuously increasing population and there is no technology that
can make this possible. We will have to work to hold back the encroachments of
the deserts, reforest, protect our biodiversity, rebuild the depleted soil,
replenish fish stocks and solve the problems of petroleum dependent agriculture.
If we do not reduce the population at the same time and we distribute food
equally, we will all starve at the same
time.
Fifty years ago abortion was spoken of
in hushed tones. In the northeastern cities of great religious strength these
hushed tones had an air of revulsion attached. In the intervening years abortion
on demand has had the support of at least 73% of the American adult populace.
Five years ago global warming was not in the “dialogue.” Some time
back the hole in the ozone layer was discovered and there was an alarming level
of denial. The most successful international agreement was struck and sometime
in the next century the hole should be “healed.” Shortly after
HIV-AIDS was discovered a lone activist was saying “we can spend a few
million dollars now, to solve this problem, or we can spend billions
later.”
Empire is described as
one group of people stealing the natural resources and/or the surplus value
created by another group. To eliminate the need to steal, we will have to
guarantee food, clothing, shelter, education, transportation and health care for
every person on earth. We can establish an international civil service to
mitigate the effects of natural disasters. A declining population and a stable,
or more productive agricultural base will make this
possible.
China suffered deprivation and
death from population pressures. They instated a “one child per
family” policy. If applied worldwide it will take 250 years to bring us to
500 million and we will increase to 28 billion in the interim. We cannot feed 6
billion-plus now. Abstinence has never worked for sex, drugs or anything else
that drives humanity.
A paradigm shift that
will solve the problem in 100 years requires that ten people accept
responsibility for one child. Five couples, at the outset, will preserve the
nuclear family. We will have to be flexible enough to institutionalize whatever
other modality the populace wishes to examine. We have the capacity to provide
every pubic boy with a vasectomy. We can declare sex for recreation not for
procreation and make the vasectomy a rite of passage. Imagine what a great
opportunity each precious child will have with 10 parents. Broad sections of
American and Chinese children have been pampered into obesity and bad attitudes.
We will have to be careful not to continue or repeat this. Our future and theirs
will depend on their strength, health and capacity to solve the substantial
problems on our horizon.
The statements above
were meant to be provocative. Let’s not be the lone voice 25 years from
now. The crisis is upon us. We can have a rich, useful, productive, fulfilling
life; let’s work on it. The problem is simple: Too many mouths to feed and
not enough farms. If we move swiftly we will avoid the most painful and hopeless
human condition, HUNGER. The problem of population explosion will be solved;
starvation or controlled reduction.
YOU CHOOSE !!!
The author is a technologist
and member of the Southern California Federation of Scientists. This is one of a
series from the SCFS written for Beachhead readers.
Posted: Mon - January 1, 2007 at 11:16 AM