May 13, 2004
HOMOCIDE:
Less is more It’s time to lighten up about falling birthrates, says George Monbiot. The world will be a happier and better place with fewer people (George Monbiot, 5/14/04, The Spectator)
[W]e know...that the planet can indefinitely support only a limited number of people. Already certain resources — paradoxically the renewable ones such as fresh water, soil, fisheries and forests — are running out; others will soon follow. Some oil geologists are predicting that global demand will exceed supply within the next ten or 15 years. The consequences of consuming fossil fuels can no longer be denied, even by The Spectator. As the government’s chief scientist observed in March, ‘the scientific community has reached a consensus’: climate change is real and man-made. Ecologists estimate the earth’s carrying capacity — the number of people it can sustain without ecological collapse — at between two and four billion.For all these reasons, we could be expected to welcome the extraordinary news that, for the first time in history, without the help of plagues, wars or famines, the human population is expected soon to start declining. Demographers now predict that our numbers will peak at about nine billion in 2070, and then begin to fall. Most of the richer nations will top out long before then. Russia’s population is already dwindling; if it weren’t for immigration Italy would be in the same position. Japan will start to shrink from next year onwards; Britain won’t be far behind. Europe’s population will fall 4 per cent by 2025. The US will keep growing for a little longer, then follow the rest of us. The real surprise is that the poorer nations are likely to go the same way. Countries like China, Mexico, Algeria and Iran are ageing even faster than we are. Even so, because we are so much older already, it is the rich nations that will shrink first.
Why is this happening? Partly because women now have better options than squeezing out as many babies as they can before they collapse into a premature old age. Partly because urbanisation means that children are no longer required to work in the fields. And partly because, in the rich world, they cost a fortune to bring up; a recent report suggested that British children cost an average of £164,000 each. So as we age more we sprog less, and the result will be a smaller and older world.
And this, surely, is what all those who want some Lebensraum without the Reich have been waiting for: an unforced, gentle decline of the seething masses, which will leave the survivors with more ecological and social space.
We have the Reich in good measure, that's how you get the rates to fall. But, to Hitler's credit, he did at least want more of his own kind of people. Folk like Mr. Monbiot hate the species entire. Except for themselves, of course--the next person to spew such vile nonsense about how the world needs less people who acts on his beliefs by actually killing himself will be the first. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 13, 2004 10:54 PM
The world will be a happier and better place with fewer people
Way back in High School, a friend of mine once said that the major governments of the world should organize an "annual war" where all the world's poor and useless citizens could be killed off. A kind of self-enforced "heard culling", if you will.
I suggested to my friend that he be the first soldier to be placed on the front lines. He recoiled at the idea.
Thus the anti-population paradox: If humans are bad, why not kill yourself?
Their inevitable answer? Because I'm worth more than you.
Posted by: Karl at May 13, 2004 11:44 PMThe estimate of the Earth's carrying capacity as being between two and four billion is outright fraud.
It might be possible that HUMANS' political carrying capacity is between two and four billion, since every single scarcity of resources that now exists is caused by political problems.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 14, 2004 3:01 AMMonbiot is living proof that the human race would be better off if some of our ancestors had just stayed in the trees.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at May 14, 2004 6:15 AMAs a (relatively) pampered European citizen, Monbiot is consuming far more than his 'fair' share of resources. Why, for every Monbiot the world could support 10 sub-Saharan Africans, or what have you. Hint, hint, Mr. Monbiot.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at May 14, 2004 6:53 AMWhat is it P.J. O'Rourke said once, about population control? "Too many of you; just enough of me"?
Posted by: Chris at May 14, 2004 8:18 AMIran and Algeria are aging faster than the US? This guy needs to read a little more.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 14, 2004 10:30 AMThis has nothing to do with hating the species. His reasons for population decline are:
" ...women now have better options than squeezing out as many babies as they can before they collapse into a premature old age ...urbanisation means that children are no longer required to work in the fields ... in the rich world, they cost a fortune to bring up."
IMHO, those observations are accurate, and the conclusion correct, irrespective of his opinions re humanity.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at May 14, 2004 1:11 PMYes, but in the US at least there is at least something of a minor movement for some families to have 3 kids. There was even articles in various places about how "3 is the new 2." Just google that phrase and you'll get some of those articles.
There's certainly many people who prefer to have one or no children, but as their lines die out, the other families should compensate.
At some point in the developed world, the population will stabilize again. Russia may be worse off because bad conditions will continue to supress birth rate. But there's nothing in Western Europe or Japan that suggests perpetual decline. Only problems is a proper reform of the welfare state, and in Europe the Muslim immigration may lead to civil war. Both are still manageable at this point.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at May 14, 2004 1:45 PMJeff:
One can SPEND a fortune on raising children, but they don't COST a fortune.
Estimates that it will cost a quarter million US$ to raise a single kid in the 21st century make me chuckle. That's only true if one has a "Starbucks" mentality, or, of course, if the kid has some terrible but nonlethal disability.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at May 15, 2004 5:12 AM