Let’s get these two arguments out of the way:
Our current ecological predicament defies all common sense. How did we get here? Following are two common assertions:
1) “Humans are an inherently flawed species: greedy and destructive.”
2) “Humans reproduce too much and thus we have to develop expansionist lifestyles and complex infrastructure to support our growing numbers.”
The problem with both explanations is that they’re incorrect.
1) We are not inherently greedy. Human nature is social and tends toward cooperation and collectivity (evolution in small, nomadic bands selects for empathy), and highly adaptable to circumstances. For nearly the whole of our species’ 200,000-year existence, humans lived sustainably. Some hunter/forager societies still exist, and they manage to avoid killing their landbases. It’s only within the last 6,000-10,000 years, roughly corresponding to agriculture and the rise of class-divided social formations, that individualism and greed have been rewarded, and human activity has such a destructive effect.
2) The global human population grew very slowly until it exploded during the Industrial Revolution (and, in particular, as a result of the so-called “Green Revolution” of industrial agriculture). The distribution of social agents is determined by structural places. Our numbers grew to fill the needs of the economy for workers, consumers, and a reserve army of labor; not the other way around.
It would be interesting to find a mum, who had her children for the above stated reasons. >So the factory needs workers? Write me down for 3 and 2 for the local coal mine, said a mum, who wished to stay annonymous.< ??? Humans are like all other beeings. They expand if there is food, territory, no natural enemies… Before ind. revolution, 3 ot of 10 children died at birth. Then there was famine, plagues, disease (no drugs and hygene) … Then all of the sudden all 10 children survived (with their mothers), lifespan doubled, no disease… of course population exploded. Not because economy. Economy happened as a consequence! Because all these children wanted food, clothing , furniture and somebody had to make it! Agreed, this put a strain on natural resources. But how would YOU get rid of the excess 6 children? Draw straws? It's easy to cast blame, solutions are much harder. Or are you telling all the world, they don't have the right to have children? Like Chinese, who were forced to adopt one child rule?
You are drawing conclusions about what I would do that are very offensive. I would not presume to tell anyone what they should do in terms of bearing children. Not that I have the power to do so, in any case. Taking care of the needs of the global population is a social concern, and must be handled collectively and democratically.
That said, many children are unplanned, and a large determinant of number of children is the level of freedom women possess to decide whether or not they wish to have them. Birth rates have been shown to be directly connected to the literacy rates of women.
That is exactly what you’re saying :-). It gets dirty, when you zoom in from global population to a single woman/family. If you say: reduce global population, that’s what is get’s to. You take a single child from a single mother. The effect then multiplies. That’s why I dislike articles who generalize the problem, yell “something has to be done about it” then shrink from personal responsability. You would not presume… Of course not, you’re socially trained and responsible. But who then? It’s like global warming, SOMEBODY has to stop using fossil fuels, preferably globaly. India and China should not use coal power plants not US and Germany….
That said, you’re about 50 years late with this article. Birthrates are falling worldwide. Check Cia factbook. 50% of countries are below 2,1 children/woman needed to sustain population. Global average is down from 5,5 to barely 2,5. And droping.
Birth rates are not connected to literacy. (ok, indirecty) . They are connected to mortality, religion and most importantly cost of having children. In India, a 10 year old is workforce, earns money for family (like it was in the 1800 in Europe) in US, Europe, a 24 year old is barely schooled. So how many can you send to college?
Be careful with needs of global population and democracy. Technology currently does not allow all 7 billion people to have petrol cars, electricity …. lest the Chinese democraticly decide oil should be sold per capita. And then the West strops driving. Like I said, it gets dirty, when you zoom-in.
Stephanie, you really shine doing these one frame illustrations to drive home a point. This one’s very good and so’ve been the new ones.