Population, being the causative factor in environmental degradation, must be thought of in any serious treatment of that subject.
I have suggested in this space that we should think about stopping inoculation programs and research aimed at prolonging human life. For one who has never thought along these lines, such suggestions are offensive as lacking in that compassion that I have also advocated here. In this column I want to try to make a case for these policies in as clear terms as possible.
I think it undeniable that human activities are damaging the environment in serious ways. Ways that may lead to devastating conditions, possibly so devastating that they could call into question the survivability of our species. We, of all people have a hard time believing that population pressure is as bad as it is made out to be by such people as Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb), and The World Watch Institute. We look around and see miles and miles of empty space eminently suitable for human habitation. But, if one considers that population pressure is a function of population multiplied by the amount of material discarded by each human, it will be quickly seen that population by that measure is roughly equal in all habitable locations on the globe.
There are three general solutions proposed for this problem. The first is to restrain the problem gradually by scientific birth control. This assumes two things, first that individual decisions will be made in the best interests of the species, and second that the population can double or quintuple before critical mass will be achieved. Both of these assumptions can be reasonably called blind faith. The second, is that we can return to a more natural way of life, thereby staving off the problem indefinitely. This conclusion lives on a romantic fantasy about what it means to live from hand to mouth off the land. I think it very likely that this scenario will come about, but not by choice. The final solution, just as good as the previous two is that some natural force, perhaps God, will come into play and the population will level off automatically, as it were.
I guess there is one other solution, "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."
I have thought for long about the practicality of solving this problem through recycling and technology. I have concluded that reducing the per capita pollution will lead to a more rapid population increase, thereby removing the advantages gained. If this is true, we must face up to the possibility that, as a species we are inherently polluters. Of course the term polluters is negative in its connotation. One could state it more positively by saying that humans inherently transform their environment.
I believe that excess population has always been a periodic problem for humanity. In the past it has been solved by immigration and up until 1950 or so, there was always someplace to immigrate to. No more. So, one must expect that population pressures will just build from now on, leading to worse and worse conflicts such as those in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Southeast Asia, and Africa.
We have historically been committed to saving human life. It has been the one ethic to which all of the people of the world have been able to subscribe. It made sense at one time, a time when humanity was far from dominating the planet. In another sense, we must all feel that our own survival is the most important consideration against which we measure our lives. It is the one thing that justifies all of our important decisions. But, a problem arises just here. At one time we were reasonably correct to equate individual survival with survival of the species. If each of us did our best to survive, and to assure the survival of our families, it would result, when added up, in the survival of the species. That approximation would appear now to have turned against us.
What I am arguing for here, is to consider as separate problems our personal survival and that of our species.
It is surely true that each of us must take all opportunities to enhance our and our families chances for survival. Surely, it would be immoral to do otherwise.
If all of these points are valid, then logic forces one to the conclusion that some opportunities for survival had best be withheld.
So, how can one decide, supposing he were in a position to decide, what opportunities for survival we would be better off without?
I have pointed out before that some mechanisms, inoculation for example, can be characterized as methods of disabling natural checks against excessive population growth. I would further suggest that only a world governing mechanism such as the UN could have the moral authority to make such decisions and that the yardstick for such decisions should be the long term survivability of our species.
Finally, I would like to reiterate that in a declining population scenario, pollution would cease to be a threat, either to us or to the natural world. We lived without inoculation for several million years. We have lived with it for less than 100 years. I guess that 100 years will be about the limit for something so deadly.
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to the population column by Mr. Rodick: I fear Mr. Rodick is far too optimistic. Our species seems to have a declining ability to appreciate causality. To refresh our memories, every effect in the universe must have a cause, sometimes very difficult to establish but it must be there, somewhere.
Mr. Rodick optimistically suggests that the earth can support a human population of 10 billion. I suggest that the Romans didn't explore Europe for no reason. They explored it because the Mediterranean area was already exploited and to expand into a heavily populated area meant a difficult war. In other words population pressure was the primary cause. Columbus didn't risk his neck looking for a path to India for nothing, he did it for the potential wealth to be had if it could be found, and his followers didn't come for nothing, they came, an ever larger portion of them, because their homeland was already exploited, that is because of population pressure.
So, population pressure was dealt with in the past through immigration. This solution is no longer available. What can be done? Have you ever seen what happens when a pressure cooker overflow valve becomes stopped? Do you know why Germany is demonstrating? Do you know why the conservatives are constantly demanding that the southern border of the US be strengthened while the liberals keep pointing at the statue of Liberty?
What was the cause of The Holocaust? Stalin's solution in the Ukraine? Pol Pot's solution in Cambodia? The Serbian/Croatian solution in Yugoslavia? The solution to the problems of Ethiopia? The current solution to the problems of Somalia?
Human's are unwilling to believe in this threat. They are unwilling because it is not apparently immediate and because the only solutions other than those already employed fly in the face of the philosophy that has guided us for as long as can be remembered. If you wish to see for yourself, read Genesis 1:28.
To get some notion of the blindness afflicting us in this matter, reread Mr. Rodick's column. He says in one breath that the end of the world is nigh because of population growth and in the next that the smallpox vaccine was a gift to mankind. If you can't see the contradiction here, then you need some instruction in causality. The result that would have obtained, were it not for the temporary defeat of disease, would have been a shorter and happier life for us all.
Joe Schiller
Pollution has been demonstrated to be a problem of mind boggling proportions. It has the potential to change radically the way humans conduct their lives and very likely to threaten our continued development on this planet.
In reaction to this, the greatest threat to humanity ever to confront it, we are exploring recycling! Get Real! Can anyone imagine how many barrels of poisonous chemicals are produced in the world every day. Has anyone considered that they must all be disposed of someday and there is no place to put them except into the environment? Wherever they are put, unless they are incinerated, they will eventually pollute the ground water. If they are incinerated they will pollute the atmosphere and perhaps when combined with other gases and rained back down on the earth, pollute it anyway.
Is there any chance of convincing people to return to low technology? No way. Give up all the comforts of technology: cars, refrigerators, air conditioners, indoor plumbing! All of these things are made using techniques that pollute the environment and when disposed of further pollute it.
So, what, besides technology is driving this grand trashing of our only home? THERE'S TOO MANY PEOPLE!
Suppose the population of the earth were dramatically smaller. What effect would this have on the pollution problem? It would eliminate it. The environment can absorb anything one puts into it, so long as the amount is not large.
Suppose the numbers of people on the planet was such that no aspect of the environment was distorted by more than ten percent. Only ten percent of the arable land under cultivation. Only ten percent of any species harvested to meet human needs, etc. Obviously, no harm would be expected.
What problems now occurring in the world can be attributed to population pressure? Most wars these days are fought because of two peoples wanting the same plot of ground. Leaving aside political greed, most people starve because the land cannot support the numbers trying to live on it.
In the face of this the UN is currently leading a drive to reduce the numbers of children dying due to lack of care in the third world. For what, so they can starve as adults?
What is the solution to this problem. We can solve it, or we can wait for nature to do it in her inimitable way. The UN should outlaw immunization. You can't have it both ways. You can't eliminate human suffering and control the population of the species.
What should we expect if this step is not taken?
Suppose Hussein makes good on his threat to disrupt oil production in the Middle East? In that case we can expect a depression in the West. In which case we can expect wide spread starvation, rampant disease, and rebellion by people, created with oil that are angry at being denied a chance at what used to be thought of as an average life. This is nature's inimitable way of dealing with a runaway population. And it is inevitable. If Hussein does not do what he threatens, it is only a matter of time until the population pressures build up to unbearable proportions. And that time will be short. The population curve is now going straight up.
The solution suggested will require us to control our compassion, in the knowledge that exercising compassion today will produce unprecedented suffering in the near future.
Editor,
I am lost in admiration for Mr. Davis's summary of the history of Marxism in the 20th century, however, I am stunned by his extrapolation of it to a denunciation of environmentalism. Certainly, the methods of the Marxists were and are morally indefensible, and the environmentalists are naive, however recognition of these facts will not change the direction of the population curve.
Observation that the earth is overpopulated is simple arithmetic. How the right wing manages to ignore it, even the estimable Mr. Limbaugh, leaves me incredulous and pondering the old Paul Simon lyric, "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." The fact that we can't kill people to solve this problem, which by the way has been demonstrated repeatedly by Marxists and others, does not mean that population reduction can't be achieved. What about attrition? This perfectly humane approach is used by business and other institutions to reduce employee counts. Certainly, if we don't do it nature will. I'm sorry that the enormity of this kind of management reduces even the strong to cringing and cowardice, but that is the fate of the apple eater.
The philosophy that has led to the population crisis is older than Judaism, since it is subscribed to by all humans, even Orientals, as near as I can determine and certainly it made sense when installed, but no more. I'm sorry that absolute moral law doesn't fly, but there it is.
The population curve looks like the above diagram, and all the posturing in the world, is not going to make it go away.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Mississippian
Editor,
In response to Mr. Crouther's response to my opinions, I strongly recommend Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal, for another interesting view on the question of overpopulation. I doubt it is any longer assigned in English Lit., but I'm sure it's in the library.
If you are really interested, I recommend Paul and Ann Ehrlich's books The Population Bomb and The Population Explosion. The Ehrlich's are academics currently at Stanford and the leading American experts on this question. I need hardly add that if our actions relating to this question turn out wrong, the future will hardly be appealing to first, second, or third world residents.
Joe Schiller
Editor,
It cannot be said, just what the population limit is of the earth. However, some conclusions can be reached.
We can say, that at the US population level and at the US standard of living, the levels of pollution that exist in the US are to be expected. We can also say the same for a country like China at five times the population of the US and at perhaps one half to one fifth the standard of living.
From this a baseline is established which can be projected into the future with reasonable accuracy. We can conclude that raising China's standard of living to that of the US would place an unacceptable burden on the environment, and conversely, quintupling the population of the US would do the same.
From this, the tradeoffs are apparent. We therefore, must do something about the population growth of humanity or suffer a dramatic decline in quality of life. This decline will express itself in a variety of ways: rising levels of garbage, declining quality of air and water, declining numbers of natural settings like parks, rising levels of violence, and many ways that we haven't thought of yet.
The price of high population density comes in a variety of forms, many of which we have already seen. In Bosnia, for example, it can be easily seen that if the population were much lower, there wouldn't be any war. The same could be said for Israel.
Of course nature has mechanisms for limiting growth, but humans disable them every chance they get. However, nature is not so easily fooled. She will just ratchet up the pressure to stop the growth. With AIDS for instance.
This leads one to wonder what will be next, since AIDS does not appear to be doing the job. The next most likely event will be the failure of the world economy, I would guess. This, if it makes oil unmarketable, will certainly have the desired effect. If not, there is always nuclear war.
Joe Schiller
A Formula for Dealing with Overpopulation
Herewith I present a long-range view of our culture. Humanity has only one problem, has never had and never will have any other problem. That problem is survival. Survival of the species. This is not the same as survival of the individual. It used to be roughly equivalent to that, but with overpopulation, that equation has become dangerously incorrect. There are sub-problems, the advanced state of decay of our culture for example, but from the point of view of the species that is only significant to the extent that it contributes to the health of the species. Obviously, the death of a corrupt culture is good for the species, unless that culture is universal.
Pause to absorb the meaning of this. Good equals enhancement to the health of the species and evil the reverse. So, your death, if you are destructive to the prospects for our culture is a good thing. Knowing whether a thing is positive species wise is not an easy thing. For example, if you are a destructive being relative to a corrupt institution, you may be positive relative to the health of the species.
Continued growth of our numbers is clearly working against our prospects for survival as a species. Unfortunately, growth in numbers means growth in wealth and political power. At the expense of the environment. That is, growth in numbers is done by exploiting the environment.
If you can't see this rather obvious equation, then you are blinded by some sort of ideology. For example the Jewish religion exhorts us to "be fruitful and multiply". Of course, at the time this statement came into being it was very good advice. Since that time we have overrun the earth to the point that there is no place left to go. If you don't believe that try to immigrate.
There are only two results to be expected from this situation. We will constrain our numbers or nature will. If nature does it, it will be unpleasant.
It is possible to imagine, now, humanity dealing with this problem. It is only necessary to adopt a useful policy. Of course the results will be difficult for the current generation to adapt to, but not as hard as the natural solution would be.
So, the steps to be taken:
1) Disallow the privilege of giving birth to those that cannot demonstrate the will and wherewithal to undertake the responsibility. This has many positive features to recommend it and only the distaste associated with loss of freedom to disrecommend it. And demanding freedom that results in one's extinction is surely immoral.
2) Enforce this policy with decreed abortion for those that transgress along with enforced sterility. This can be done in an humane way with the abortion pill and the underskin birth control device. The problems with immorality associated with abortion are bypassed when abortion is imposed by the government, since the government is not a person and therefore incapable of acting either morally or immorally.
3) Of course this policy is supranational and therefore must be imposed by the UN, but with the ability acquired in Desert Storm, to deny a nation the ability to trade with the world, it has the tools.
We were warned about 20 years ago by the scientific community (The Population Bomb) that we are headed for disaster if we don't find some way to overcome an exponentially increasing human population on the earth. At the time the problem was discussed and put on the back burner after a few opposition scientists suggested ways to dispute the theory.
It is also well understood what happens to populations of other species when growth limitations are removed so that they can increase until they fill their habitat. At some point a dramatic decrease in numbers occurs, induced by some problem produced by the numbers involved.
It is suggested that is not to be expected in the case of humans because humans are different. Well the difference is that humans can predict the future to some extent and therefore they can implement a plan to stave off disaster before it occurs. The method does not involve pretending the problem doesn't exist.
Our country is not one of those most seriously affected by overcrowding and so this leads us to the conclusion that we have time to consider the problem. Other countries may suffer but not us, at least not right away, so goes the argument. This is an erroneous conclusion. Population should be calculated by multiplying the number of people by the amount of waste allocable to an individual. This has not been done, but the result will be that the US is the most overpopulated country in the world. The reason this calculation must be done is that a certain amount of environment must be available to absorb the wastes of each individual in the society. China can have many more people because they don't produce anything like as much waste as we. The answer is not to reduce the standard of living either. Wrecking the US economy will wreck the world economy, thereby inducing dramatic population reduction.
Now, do we have a population problem?
* Rising levels of immigration to the US.
This problem results from a lack of opportunity in other countries which results from too many people and too few resources.
* Constant wars in Africa and the middle east.
These wars result from multiple groups of people who wish to occupy the same piece of land.
* Trash disposal problems.
Too much trash. Too few places to put it.
* Water supply problems.
Too many users, not enough water.
* Famine and desertification in Africa and Asia.
Too many farmers abusing too little land.
* Acid rain.
Too many people demanding too much energy.
* The greenhouse effect.
Too many people driving too many cars.
* The destruction of the ozone layer in the atmosphere.
Too many people using too many CFC's.
* Oil spills in the oceans.
Too many people demanding too much oil.
* The destruction of large numbers of species.
Too many people demanding too much land and too many trinkets.
* Deforestation in Brazil.
Too many people demanding too much land.
* Super germs in hospitals.
Too many people demanding too many antibiotics.
* AIDS
Too many people demanding too much sexual gratification.
* Drug abuse in the west.
Too many people demanding to feel good.
* Legionaires Disease.
Too many people demanding air conditioned comfort.
* Rising divorce rate.
Too many people demanding too much happiness.
* Rising numbers of illegitimate children.
Too many people demanding too much sexual gratification.
* Rising crime and limited jail space.
Too many people demanding too much.
* Pornography.
Too many customers for any product offered.
Now, given that there are too many people, what can or should be done?
Two possibilities exist:
1) We can disregard the problem and allow nature to take its course. This will mean that some disaster (disease, war, famine) will lead to a dramatic decrease in the future, probably the near future.
2) We can implement some plan to reduce the population in some more agreeable way before the disaster arrives.
The only politically viable way to reduce the population of the world is to implement a population policy. This means birth quotas enforced by government decreed abortion. This is more palatable than individual responsibility for abortion decisions, because the government is responsible for the group and therefore its responsibilities are fundamentally different from the individual, who must be concerned with individual survival.
Factors Leading to the Conclusion that an Impending Crisis Exists
1. Trend towards increasingly violent weather on a worldwide scale.
2. A worldwide economic recession.
3. A rate of human population increase that requires a change soon.
4. The dramatic growth of stock values on the US stock exchange.
5. The decline in efficacy of anti-biotics.
6. The increasing incidence of new deadly viruses and the return of others previously dormant. e.g. AIDS and TB.
7. The rise in the incidence of loss of species due to human intervention.
8. The approach of the year 2000 which many will consider to be a significant year due to its roundness.
9. The nihilist and retrospective quality of artistic expression.
10. The effort to replace masculine institutions with feminist ones.
11. The reversal of the tendency to centralized control of political areas (ethnic strife).
12. The rising incidence of unresolvable political conflict (neither side able to dominate).
13. The loss of immigration as a safety valve to release political pressure (Only negative immigration now occurs, the kind that increases political pressure).
14. The decline of creativity.
15. Biblical prediction.
16. The loss of war as a practical means of releasing political pressure (too risky and too expensive).
17. The failure of technology (pollution of the environment).
18. The fact that feminism as a response to the failure of technology is a regression.
19. The lack of an acceptable goal towards which humanity can strive. World peace is a negative goal whose achievement cannot be measured and space is too expensive.
20. The loss of cultural standards (the inclusion of social outcasts in mainstream society (criminals, homosexuals)).
21. The loss of behavioral standards (nondiscrimination).
22. The rise of crime and sexual abnormality (child molestation, rape, pornography) and escape through drugs.
23. The rise of religious fundamentalism suggests that humans are looking for simple answers to ubiquitous and impenetrable problems.
24. The fact that humanity has searched the world over and even under the ocean and into outer space for the promised land and failed to find it. This suggests that a species of our nature cannot expect to find a permanent home.
Contra-indicators
1. The ubiquitous nature of predictions of Armageddon.
2. The lack of any practical experience on which to base a prediction of cultural breakdown.
Timing
1. The year 2000 because of its roundness.
2. Because of the population problem and the fact it will double at current rates by 2050, one can be relatively sure it will occur before then.
3. The fact that one human disaster like world economic failure or a natural one like large meteor impact will likely induce other types of failure like widespread starvation, disease and war, leads to an expectation of close at hand proximity.
4. The possibility that Russia is the beginning of the expected disaster suggests that it has already started.
The Proper Response
1. Survivalism is the idea that the knowledgeable can survive with sufficient preparation. To this one must question the desire: what would a post civilized world be like? Would we wish to live in it?
2. It must be concluded that the notion that numbers are a good measure of success for a species is false. That the only valid measure is longevity. This line of reasoning leads one to the conclusion that we, as a species, must change. Looking about for a suitable model leads one to the conclusion that we should consider the whale. This is the only example of a successful large brained mammal.
Reasons for the Coming Collapse of Civilization
December 28, 1990
Editor
Harper's
New York
Sir:
This letter is in response to your comments on Dial-A-Bummer and proposes the theory that all societal problems flow from one insoluble problem, overpopulation. This simplification allows one to reach the conclusion that apocalypse is not only inevitable but close at hand, my reasoning follows:
1. Growth in population creates pressure in the same way boiling water creates pressure. In the case of water the molecules expand so that fewer can occupy the available space. In the case of population, greater numbers in a fixed area have the same effect.
2. Overpopulation has always been a problem for humans because of the desire to remain where one is born and to congregate in ever larger societies. In the past it has been solved by immigration. This option is no longer available for most.
3. The most noticeable strain produced by increased population occurs in the food delivery system. Food must be grown which places pressure on land; transported, placing pressure on delivery systems (think of the number of trucks on the highways); and marketed, placing pressure on shelf space (think of the number of stores and parking areas and the resources necessary to sustain them.)
4. After that, new population requires living space, placing pressure on land, structures, building trades, social services, governments.
5. Requirements for the new population can be considered in terms of raw materials and services. Services means growing institutions, especially government, which will lead to constraints on individual freedom due to an ever increasing need for efficiency. Raw materials will produce pressure to expand (expansion is no longer practical due to inward population pressure) or to acquire rights to off shore resources. Offshore resources will drain off wealth leading to economic pressure (think of oil imports in the West.)
6. The effects of population pressure are hard to predict, since some will be passed through many hands before becoming perceptible. But some effects are now obvious: The need for more and more consumables has placed a great strain on waste disposal everywhere on the globe. Degradation of the atmosphere due to energy consumption by an ever expanding population seems inescapable. Other effects will surely include war growing out of border disputes (Iraq/Kuwait), terrorism developing from multiple populations vying for rights to the same land (Israelis/Palestinians), economic failure due to overburdening the system (the S&L crisis), medical problems (overcrowding produces ideal environments for disease transfer.)
7. One crisis will likely lead to another since population pressure has placed all systems on the brink of failure. Thus, war, by placing too great a strain on governmental finances may lead to economic failure which will lead to famine which will lead to disease. To test the validity of the brink theory remember the state of the medical system. In large cities where population pressure is worst, hospitals are shutting down because of overuse of emergency services by a population that cannot pay. The financial system which means the banking system which is stressed by bad loans (S&L and third world countries.) The welfare system which is flooded by too many users (otherwise we wouldn't have a homeless problem on the streets.) One system which doesn't seem to be stressed is food production. But look at the problems besetting it: insufficient profit, subsidies, pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer poisoning, topsoil and water depletion.
8. Thus we should look to financial brinkmanship as the tip-off that disaster is approaching. If we see economic problems arising out of government mismanagement, then the time is ripe for a war to upset the balance. Philadelphia is anticipated to arrive at insolvency before the end of 1990. This has been precipitated by the loss of federal funds which is a result of chronic budget deficits at the federal level. Our governmental financial trials are due to the political strain of imposing distasteful financial measures when one's reelection is dependent on pleasing the electorate (this is a systemic problem not readily soluble.) It is all too apparent that financial problems result from granting relief from suffering to individuals with public money. Once given, the political will to take it away can't be found. Thus an entity that grows constantly has been created that will in time bankrupt the government.
9. These reflections lead to the conclusion that attempting to deal with environmental degradation is useless because societal collapse is inevitable before environmental failure can occur anyway. In addition, success will lead to a worsening of other threats due to an increase in population growth flowing from the existence of a now benign environment.
10. Recession could trigger the end by reducing government income while at the same time increasing expenditures. This will become obvious if recession flows into depression. That is to say if negative growth in the GNP begins to feed on itself instead of applying pressure for positive growth.
11. 1991 appears to hold a war involving one of the two superpowers, a recession for Western economies, a depression in, and the breakup of the largest empire in the history of the world. If all of this does occur, dramatic social failure on a scale never before seen appears likely.
Joe Schiller
Editor
The Daily Mississippian
Editor,
In response to your editorial about the compassionate Mr. Devenney. I have no desire to demean the efforts of Mr. Devenney, but can we think a moment.
As we saw at Rio last month, every problem threatening our species is related to one causative factor. Too many people. One reason we have too many people is there is so much compassion in the world, nobody is allowed to die.
Is it really compassionate to save a person from death, so that they can suffer from pain for 20 more years? How about so that they can spend their families' resources on medical care and place their spouse on welfare? How about rescuing a malnourished child so that it can later be sent back to starvation for a second or third time?
The trouble with compassion is that it concentrates on today and never thinks about next year.
One also wonders about the Good Samaritan's real motives. Humans seem to have an unending wish to act in a heroic way, to the extreme that they invent heroic roles for themselves that usually involve no personal risk.
The philosophy that requires that we prolong life at all costs is a bankrupt philosophy that has turned on us. It made sense when humans were small in number and at a decided disadvantage against the forces of nature. But now, continuing to pursue this philosophy works against us in a progressively more destructive way.
Look what it leads us to. In order to prolong the lives of children involved prematurely in sexual behavior, we hand out condoms, thereby reinforcing their destructive behavior. In order to save addicts we hand out needles with the same result.
No philosophy can be permanently good. Good is a statement about survival of the user of the philosophy. Since this philosophy works against our long term survival prospects it must be judged evil.
Joe Schiller