Over population

I had written this post as a comment to Karl's post "Green the New Socialism". When I tried to post it, Blogger said it had too many characters.

I will also reply to Krauthammer's piece, but only after I've cooled down a bit.

Let me deal with the National Post article first. It is easier, not because I know the answers, but because we will be closer to agreement on the answers. I did not know of the National Post article until you mentioned it. I agree with the essence of her column, if not the details. Dianne Francis is, as you may know, Conrad Black's wife, and when she was writing for Macleans Magazine, was without a doubt the most right wing columnist there.

I find myself very conflicted about this whole matter of population limits. Part of this is a no-brainer. There is a limit to the number of people who can survive, let alone live on a particular piece of land, whether this is Ethiopia, a piece of land in ancient Israel, or planet Earth. What is that limit? Well it varies – from place to place and time to time. In the past, as far back as Abraham and later Ruth in the OT, and as recent as 1974 in Ethiopia, nature alone determined how many people could survive on a piece of land. If there was overpopulation, a famine occurred. The famine adjusted the number of people to an appropriate number, and life went on. Nature is terribly brutal!

But modern technology has changed that. In 1974, when Mary and I first went to Ethiopia (in response to that famine), the population estimate was 23 million. Today that estimate is over 70 million, and this number is possible because of modern technology – the availability of nitrogenous fertilizer and the ability to transport food long distances, if a shortage occurs anywhere.

But this modern technology has also had unintended devastating consequences. According to Wikipedia, there are records of famines in Ethiopia going to the 9th century. But during this same time there have also been tremendous feats such as the building of rock hewn churches and obelisks (when our forefathers were living in caves and running around in animal skins). Why this combination? Since there was little capacity to mitigate the famine, people starved and died before they had a chance to devastate the countryside. So the forests survived, erosion was minimized, natural fertility of the land was maintained, etc. So when the famine passed, there were the resources to build a culture. Today a famine occurs, but because of modern technology the effects are mitigated. The population scrapes through (survives), and lives to do the “reasonable” thing the next year – clear more forest, plow more land, have more children, devastate the planet.

But ultimately, the resources will not be there. Ultimately, technology will not be able to do its magic.

Yes, the bible says be fruitful and multiply

I have been involved in helping people scrape through. It is a very rewarding experience to be involved in bringing food to a hungry (starving) people. I could be there now, administering food relief. My skill set is very relevant there. I have considered it, and because of the above reservations, I am not now in Africa. Instead I am here in N America, trying to do some education on what it might mean to live more gently on the planet so others living now, or perhaps living in the future can experience some of the abundance I have.

I am totally convinced that if a society wants to prosper on the long run, it needs to control its consumption. In some countries this will mean population control. So far the only effective means we have found is educating women and getting them meaningful jobs. This is effective, but can only be applied in a few places. Other than that, we have the Chinese model, and that is draconian. Who wants to implement that. It probably can’t be implemented in a democracy. And what moral right have I , given the privileges of birth that I have, to say to others they may not have access to the choices I have access to. So?!?!.

In China there is a negative correlation between the birth rate and economic prosperity. I have wondered whether there is a cause and effect. I have not heard anyone suggesting that, but I find it plausible.

And then there is the political angle. Diane Francis, right wing columnist advocates population control. Ronald Regan was the most vociferous critic on China’s one child policy I know. Maybe there is no political angle.