To the next chapter - The Three R's: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
World Population
Individual Choice
U.S. Population and Immigration
"We humans have been relating to the ecosystem of planet Earth as if we were an alien species - the cancer tumor in the body of life - seeking our own unlimited expansion without regard to the consequences for the larger community of life on which our own existence ultimately depends. We must now learn what every successful species has learned before us: to live as members of cooperative living communities exquisitely adapted to the microenvironments of our particular place on Earth." - David Korten ["The Great Turning"].
"Recognizing that our [U.S.] population cannot grow indefinitely and appreciating the advantages of moving now toward the stabilization of population, the Commission recommends that the nation welcome and plan for a stabilized population." - [Report of the [Presidential] Commission on Population Growth and The American Future, 1970]
Thomas Malthus is credited with being the first to point out that human population growth had the capability of out-running human food supply. Unconcerned people are fond of stating that Malthus was obviously wrong because there are now billions of us. The Green Revolution of the 70s and 80s greatly increased availability of food. Cornucopians insist that there is plenty of food to feed everyone adequately if we would just distribute it properly. These optimists ignore the fact that the Green Revolution and today's world food supply have been created by the energy of fossil fuel, by the conversion of sustainable small-scale agriculture to corporate-owned mega-farms, and by the extinction of many species and destruction of many ecosystems.
Since Malthus we have learned that food is not the only population-related issue. Minerals, fuel wood, and water are also in short supply in many parts of the world. There is great danger that, in spite of our ability to discuss the issue, we will choose not to limit our population until we overshoot the capability of Earth to sustain us, and consequently endure rapid population decrease by malnutrition, disease, and war.
Additional population issues involve the quality of life. In 2007, for the first time in history, more than 75% of world's people live in urban areas. Denser populations require more laws to regulate human interactions and bigger government to enforce regulations; the classic freedoms of behavior become increasingly restricted. Growing population also limits the possibility that everyone can achieve an affluent standard of living. Higher urban populations mean less and less interaction with nature and the wild, making Ecoshift less likely. High human population limits the amount of living space available for all other species.
ZPGIn the social ferment of the late 1960s, which led to the first Earth Day in 1970, I chose to work on overpopulation, which I considered the primary environmental issue. I organized a local chapter of Zero Population Growth and I talked to many groups and on a couple of radio stations about population control. For several years ZPG and other organizations made population a political and ethical issue. The slogan "Stop at Two" induced American couples to reduce their usual family size from 3 , 4, or more children to 2 children. Another slogan, "Whatever Your Cause It's a Lost Cause Unless We Control Population" remains true today and tells why population control is a fundamental component of Ecoshift. |
Gradually through the 1970s the nation's reaction to social change brought on conservative government and successfully removed overpopulation from national debate. Partly this was caused by publicity for the fact that the United States had nearly reached the one child per person replacement rate (erroneously considered to mean population growth was halted). Partly this happened because the issue of population got conflated with the issue of abortion. I never understood why contraceptive methods that prevent fertilization, and thus eliminate any need for abortion, should be unacceptable. Unfortunately for humanity and Earth, anti-abortionists stopped all United States government funding for contraception and population control world-wide. The topic of population also became politically incorrect supposedly because it hints of anti-women, anti-people, anti-children, anti-rights, and anti-freedom.
High-handed anthropocentrism coupled with egocentrism apparently gives humans a "right" to control population levels of other species while avoiding consideration of our own population level. In analogy to genocidal racism, this attitude has been called "speciesism".
In 1804 world population was 1 billion people; it took 123 years to add the next billion, 33 years to add the next, and only 14 years to reach 4 billion in 1974. This was the time when the zero population growth movement attained its zenith. Population passed the next two billion in 13 years each, and reached 6.7 billion in October 2008. How high will it go? Predictions by organizations that study the question generally indicate reaching at least 9 and perhaps 12 billion in a few more decades before finally ceasing to grow.
Stabilizing population requires reaching and permanently maintaining a reproduction rate of only two children per couple (better stated as one child per person). However, even after this rate is attained, population will continue to grow for many decades as the current large young generations age, and the ultimately stable population will be considerably larger than the current population.
Reasons usually given for eventual cessation of population growth include improvement of general education and health, changing roles of women, and increased knowledge about and access to birth control. But I have serious personal doubts about whether these trends will be sufficient. I believe that much greater incentives will be needed to reach and maintain a global reproduction rate of one child per person.
Lots more facts on world population can be found at the Population Reference Bureau web site and on Ecofuture's Population and Sustainability pages. There are plenty of population-related organizations that are trying to stop or reverse the growth of humanity. One international effort that I support is PCI-Media Impact (formerly Population Communications International). They develop TV soap operas in many countries; these soaps take on issues like women's roles, family size, family economics, and birth control, with amazing results. I also support Negative Population Growth, which may be the only organization that overtly seeks a reduction of U.S. population in order to reduce America's adverse impact on Earth.
Ross McCluney's web site describes various ways of estimating maximum sustainable or desirable human populations. Ecological footprint analysis (see the Sustainability chapter) shows that three Earths would be required to sustain the current world population of 6 billion at the affluence level of North America and Europe. But we only have one! Furthermore, a major fundamental of the Ecoshift movement states that a significant portion of Earth's ecosystems should be set aside for other species to live and evolve unaffected by humans (see the Deep Ecology chapter and the Universe Story chapter). I believe, along with ecologist Eugene Odum, author of "Radical Simplicity" Jim Merkel, and the Ecospheric Ethics web site that this portion should be about 50%. Therefore a human population of one billion is an appropriate goal.
Does this sound ridiculous and impossible? In "Radical Simplicity", Merkel analyzes population possibilities over the next 100 years, and shows how world population in 2100 could
be
We need to encourage and support both one-child families and especially couples who choose not to have children. We need to keep adoption as a possibility, though the supply of adoptable children has decreased globally as the stigmas of femaleness, illegitimacy, and single parenthood are being eliminated. We need to make birth control methods and education about responsible sex abundantly available. We need education in parenting and experience in mock parenting before becoming one. We need to eliminate the pro-natalism of potential grandparents. Bill McKibben has argued powerfully for a one child-family in "Maybe One: An Environmental and Personal Argument for Single-child Families".
In the early 1970s population activists, including me, succeeded in bringing the fertility rate of native-born Americans down below the so-called replacement rate of about 2.2. The fertility rate is defined as the average number of children produced by a female who survives through age 45; the extra 0.2 allows for mortality before age 45. Through the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. native-born fertility rate remained between 1.8 and 2.1 and the decadal population increase actually declined. But on December 21, 2007 the Washington Post ran an article with the headline "U.S. Fertility Rate Hits 35-Year High, Stabilizing Population" and the initial line "For the first time in 35 years, the U.S. fertility rate has climbed high enough to sustain a stable population, solidifying the nation's unique status among industrialized countries." The article goes on to breath a sigh of relief that we are back up to 2.2 and are not, as some like to say, heading for extinction, like those European countries with fertility way below replacement levels.
What is wrong with this picture? How can we have had a fertility rate below replacement and at the same time have a rapidly rising population? The answer is partly the momentum effect described above, but is primarily immigration, which the article barely mentions. Immigration has been much in the news lately, with great debates over whether it is a good thing ("we are a nation of immigrants") or a bad thing ("they all want welfare and Spanish-speaking schools"). But the immigration debate rarely involves the pure question of what size population we want in the United States.
About two-thirds of U.S. population growth since 1970 resulted from immigration. Of the 125 million additional Americans expected by 2050, 67 million will be immigrants and 50 million more their children and grandchildren. The United States currently has a de facto policy of increasing its population very rapidly. LEGAL immigration is now over one million a year. By far the largest category of immigrants now are relatives of naturalized citizens. Current immigration law provides for entry of spouse, young children, and parents with no quota limits, and of adult children and siblings with quota limits (a long waiting list). This so-called "family reunification" accounts for three-quarters of legal immigration. Then when the parents or siblings become naturalized in six or so years, even more relatives become eligible. This process is known as "chain migration". Many of these relatives enter the U.S. illegally, choosing to do their waiting here. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated in 2006 that there were 11.6 million illegal immigrants in the country, but other estimates are 20 to 36 million. All children born to these illegals are automatically U.S. citizens. As the graph above showed, it is not just the legal and illegal immigrants, but all the children born to them that are pushing up the population so fast.
If we grant amnesty to the illegal immigrants that are already here, as we have done once before, we encourage even more people to come into the U.S. illegally. This, coupled with the fact that some present and future illegals are terrorists and drug dealers, is prompting Congress to tighten up our borders, especially with Mexico.
Why do we have such a high immigration rate in spite of the Population Commission's recommendation that we stabilize our population? Because of an unusual coalition between big business and liberals. Big business promotes immigration to provide a large labor pool willing to work for low wages. Liberals promote immigration as a way out of poverty and to bring America new energy and greater diversity.
However, as long as the supply of people willing to work for low wages is maintained, it is not possible for minimum wage to rise to living wage levels, which are the wages needed to keep a family out of poverty. The large population of immigrant workers makes life more difficult for our native-born poor, including minorities like Blacks and Native Americans. With high immigration, we ensure that the problems of inner cities, of minorities, of financial inequities, and of health care for all will never be solved. For more discussion of the adverse impacts of high immigration, see Roy Beck's book "The Case Against Immigration", his web site NumbersUSA.com, and The Carrying Capacity Network.
The immigration debate almost never recognizes that it is affluent nations that most need to control their population because they have the largest per capita impact on Earth's systems. As some immigrants do succeed in raising their living standard, they add to the adverse impact of the United States on world ecosystems because they expect to enjoy the American consumer lifestyle. After all, that is what they dream about or they would not be coming here. But as long as the high rate of immigration continues, there will not be a stable U.S. population, and true sustainability will never be achieved. Furthermore, in terms of improving life for the poor from other countries, the 1 million immigrants we currently allow each year makes hardly a dent in the 80 million annual population increase in the third world.
In keeping with the usual all or nothing, bipolar, approach to issues, immigration proponents argue that we can't "close the door". They fail to understand that the issue is not a choice between letting nobody in and letting everybody in. Clearly the United States would be totally overwhelmed if we allowed everyone in who wanted to come here, therefore we do set some limit on immigration. The immigration debate should really be about what annual immigration rate we should maintain. With immigration of 200,000 a year, which is roughly the historic average, U.S. population could soon be stable and many of our country's social ills would be much more easily solved.
To the next chapter - The Three R's: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
ECOSHIFT: Population Growth - by Tony Federer