The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago.
The second best time is now’
Chinese proverb
‘Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race’
(UNICEF Report, 1992)
‘Human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate’
Albert Einstein
We can change.
Overpopulation is at the root of every new disaster, a light bulb switches on when you realise this. All environmental problems are worsened by the threat multiplier of increasing human population, and are lessened with a smaller population.
We should have acted on population decades ago. It is the long emergency with long term solutions. Everyone should talk about population, but very few do. A fundamental shift of opinion must happen covering all sources of power and influence: politicians, businesses, religions, charities and the rest. Politicians only react when told to by the people. The issue must be brought into the mainstream.
We have known all of the facts but have done very little. As we see the world deteriorate we should act now; any reductions in birth rates made now will still have a positive effect for the future. We can still turn things around and create a beautiful and sustainable planet for everyone. The message that must be given is of the positives that will result when population goes down. Everything would be better: more space, fresh clean air, the freedom to travel, cheap plentiful housing, the re-growing forests, the birds and wildlife – and a recovering climate.
Every environmental problem is a subset of overpopulation. Overpopulation is a threat multiplier of every environmental problem. Taking the purest, simplest logic and looking directly at the impacts heading our way, we must act on overpopulation. Every charity and cause should have consumption and population as the fundamental principles underlying their work. The dots should be connected and the obvious benefits of a smaller population should be openly recognised and at the forefront of our collective consciousness. Population size and human-caused impact awareness should be ingrained everywhere, by everyone, in every walk of life. The media and the public have to wake up from the stupor of hyper-consumerism we have been wallowing in for decades. The end of plenty is upon us, yet we amble along, happy in the daze of driving, shopping and eating, while our future becomes more precarious by the day.
To address only consumption will not fix the problem in time. We should recognise that prevention is better than cure: by choosing not to introduce another life into the world you have prevented a whole lifetime’s worth of consumption. The UN aims to rid the world of poverty by 2050, which means increasing resource use. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, food supplies will need to be increased by 70 per cent by 2050 to meet projected demands. Ridding the world of poverty and increasing food supplies isn’t possible without destroying what is left of the natural world. If we are already using 1.4 planets, how can we eliminate poverty, even with technological agricultural advances? We can only fix it by tackling it on both sides: consumption and population.
It is simple to explain where we are now and where the world is heading. To have one less child is a small sacrifice that benefits everyone. But it is a huge challenge given the size of the world, the different religions, cultures, levels of education, political and economic systems at work, together with the changing environment and the potential for war.
Environmental groups should unite to confront the colossus of blind consumerism and eternal growth. Anthropocentricism should be abandoned and biocentrism embraced. We should do everything we can to improve our environment. Only by working as one can our voices become loud enough to be heard above the barrier of corporations and government. The tiny groups defending their own piece of wildlife will only succeed when the pressure is removed from all of nature.
A voluntarily accepted, progressive and humane population policy is the best way to overcome the dangers faced by the world today. A mind-set where it is accepted that having a small family is the best thing you can do would change the world dramatically for the better within a few decades.
Fixing Climate Breakdown through Family Planning
“Contraceptives should be used on every conceivable occasion”
Spike Milligan
We should be copulating, not populating. Family planning, resulting in reduced population growth, would reduce emissions by a quarter of the amount needed to avoid warming of 2°C by 2050. Reducing emissions by this much, with this one simple measure, is a policy that must not be ignored. It would have more impact than taking every single vehicle in the world off the road, vehicles contributing 14 per cent of emissions. It would have the same effect as eliminating all CO2 emissions from all electricity and heat production, globally.
Current carbon dioxide emissions are added at around 10 billion tonnes per year, and the budget set to avoid temperature increases over 2°C is set to be exhausted in less than 25 years. Following a lower population path could reduce emissions by 1.4–2.5 billion tonnes annually by 2050, which is equivalent to 16–29 per cent of the emission reductions necessary to achieve these aims. By the end of the century, the effect of slower population growth would be even more significant, reducing total emissions from fossil fuel use by 37–41 per cent.
With 200 million women worldwide lacking access to family planning, providing this access gives families the ability to plan when to have children and to decide how many they want, giving them all far better lives. All of this could be fairly easily provided given the political will, and would lower fertility rates worldwide. Had action been taken at the end of the 20th century, world population would have peaked before 2000 and we wouldn’t be facing today’s multiple crises.
The costs for providing family-planning facilities are tiny compared to their benefits. Due to the widespread apathy on the subject, only a few studies have carried out cost estimates for implementing global family planning. In 2010, the Futures Group produced the World Population Prospects and Unmet Need for Family Planning report (Scott Moreland, 2010) , which estimated that the annual costs for supplying these needs would be $3.7 billion per year. To put that figure into perspective, the UK spends four times that amount on foreign aid (0.7 per cent of its gross national income; approximately $15 billion in 2017). That means a quarter of the global emissions reductions necessary to avoid warming of 2°C by 2050 could be achieved with a quarter of the UK’s foreign aid budget.
Proactive Peak Population Positivity
Talking about population is becoming less taboo as people realise the impacts of human population size and the devastation we have unleashed as a result. It is no longer a subject that can be ignored, because the stakes are too high. People are slowly but surely realising that overpopulation is a crucial player and threat multiplier in the unfolding and unprecedented scale of change happening right now. There will always be a minority of people saying there is no issue with numbers, but they are becoming increasingly marginalised as rational thought and common sense win through. Those who deny that the issue of population should be addressed can be met with a full rebuttal of persuasive reason and logic. As momentum increases with discussion on the subject, a tipping point is being reached where it is normal, accepted and commonplace to talk about our numbers.
A lack of awareness and action by governments means that public awareness becomes key to the great positive changes a smaller population will bring. The list of the benefits a smaller population will bring for people all over the world is endless. The message of these benefits has to be conveyed in a way to capture the imagination and show the possible great future of a world with a happy and stable population. We are capable of accomplishing a rapid reduction in global fertility and we must make the dream a reality.
The momentum behind the awareness of overpopulation is building, but it is still a minor subject far from mainstream awareness. The more people talk about population, the more momentum will build and the more action will be taken. The results take time and are not visible in the way other actions are. Having a small family isn’t seen as being green in the same way as other actions are, but the true benefits are far greater.
When a critical mass is reached and begins to make a serious case for a reduction in population, it will become much easier for scientists, environmentalists, politicians, economists, and the general public to speak candidly about the critical need to address population. It will be possible to talk frankly about population.
The Greenest of the Green
Is it ethical to bring another child into our already overcrowded world? That is the question being asked by more and more people. The greatest sacrifice anyone can make for their fellow humans and the environment is making the decision of not having many children.
Asking the general public about ‘doing the right thing’ for the environment will produce suggestions about cutting down on eating meat, using less plastic, flying less or taking the train instead of the car. But most people don't say ‘don’t have children’. The public’s and the media’s recognition of the devastation caused by overpopulation is almost non-existent. ‘Top ten’ lists of things you can do to save the planet never usually mention having a small family.
A 2017 study (Wynes, 2017) into the best ways that a person can reduce their emissions shows that the single best way is to have one less child. This gave an average reduction in emissions for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent emission reductions per year. The next three ways were living car-free (2.4 CO2 tonnes saved per year), avoiding aeroplane travel (1.6 tonnes CO2 saved per round-trip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 CO2 tonnes saved per year). Adding together all of the other best ways to reduce emissions does not come close to the amount saved by having one less child.
The second best time is now’
Chinese proverb
‘Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race’
(UNICEF Report, 1992)
‘Human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate’
Albert Einstein
We can change.
Overpopulation is at the root of every new disaster, a light bulb switches on when you realise this. All environmental problems are worsened by the threat multiplier of increasing human population, and are lessened with a smaller population.
We should have acted on population decades ago. It is the long emergency with long term solutions. Everyone should talk about population, but very few do. A fundamental shift of opinion must happen covering all sources of power and influence: politicians, businesses, religions, charities and the rest. Politicians only react when told to by the people. The issue must be brought into the mainstream.
We have known all of the facts but have done very little. As we see the world deteriorate we should act now; any reductions in birth rates made now will still have a positive effect for the future. We can still turn things around and create a beautiful and sustainable planet for everyone. The message that must be given is of the positives that will result when population goes down. Everything would be better: more space, fresh clean air, the freedom to travel, cheap plentiful housing, the re-growing forests, the birds and wildlife – and a recovering climate.
Every environmental problem is a subset of overpopulation. Overpopulation is a threat multiplier of every environmental problem. Taking the purest, simplest logic and looking directly at the impacts heading our way, we must act on overpopulation. Every charity and cause should have consumption and population as the fundamental principles underlying their work. The dots should be connected and the obvious benefits of a smaller population should be openly recognised and at the forefront of our collective consciousness. Population size and human-caused impact awareness should be ingrained everywhere, by everyone, in every walk of life. The media and the public have to wake up from the stupor of hyper-consumerism we have been wallowing in for decades. The end of plenty is upon us, yet we amble along, happy in the daze of driving, shopping and eating, while our future becomes more precarious by the day.
To address only consumption will not fix the problem in time. We should recognise that prevention is better than cure: by choosing not to introduce another life into the world you have prevented a whole lifetime’s worth of consumption. The UN aims to rid the world of poverty by 2050, which means increasing resource use. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, food supplies will need to be increased by 70 per cent by 2050 to meet projected demands. Ridding the world of poverty and increasing food supplies isn’t possible without destroying what is left of the natural world. If we are already using 1.4 planets, how can we eliminate poverty, even with technological agricultural advances? We can only fix it by tackling it on both sides: consumption and population.
It is simple to explain where we are now and where the world is heading. To have one less child is a small sacrifice that benefits everyone. But it is a huge challenge given the size of the world, the different religions, cultures, levels of education, political and economic systems at work, together with the changing environment and the potential for war.
Environmental groups should unite to confront the colossus of blind consumerism and eternal growth. Anthropocentricism should be abandoned and biocentrism embraced. We should do everything we can to improve our environment. Only by working as one can our voices become loud enough to be heard above the barrier of corporations and government. The tiny groups defending their own piece of wildlife will only succeed when the pressure is removed from all of nature.
A voluntarily accepted, progressive and humane population policy is the best way to overcome the dangers faced by the world today. A mind-set where it is accepted that having a small family is the best thing you can do would change the world dramatically for the better within a few decades.
Fixing Climate Breakdown through Family Planning
“Contraceptives should be used on every conceivable occasion”
Spike Milligan
We should be copulating, not populating. Family planning, resulting in reduced population growth, would reduce emissions by a quarter of the amount needed to avoid warming of 2°C by 2050. Reducing emissions by this much, with this one simple measure, is a policy that must not be ignored. It would have more impact than taking every single vehicle in the world off the road, vehicles contributing 14 per cent of emissions. It would have the same effect as eliminating all CO2 emissions from all electricity and heat production, globally.
Current carbon dioxide emissions are added at around 10 billion tonnes per year, and the budget set to avoid temperature increases over 2°C is set to be exhausted in less than 25 years. Following a lower population path could reduce emissions by 1.4–2.5 billion tonnes annually by 2050, which is equivalent to 16–29 per cent of the emission reductions necessary to achieve these aims. By the end of the century, the effect of slower population growth would be even more significant, reducing total emissions from fossil fuel use by 37–41 per cent.
With 200 million women worldwide lacking access to family planning, providing this access gives families the ability to plan when to have children and to decide how many they want, giving them all far better lives. All of this could be fairly easily provided given the political will, and would lower fertility rates worldwide. Had action been taken at the end of the 20th century, world population would have peaked before 2000 and we wouldn’t be facing today’s multiple crises.
The costs for providing family-planning facilities are tiny compared to their benefits. Due to the widespread apathy on the subject, only a few studies have carried out cost estimates for implementing global family planning. In 2010, the Futures Group produced the World Population Prospects and Unmet Need for Family Planning report (Scott Moreland, 2010) , which estimated that the annual costs for supplying these needs would be $3.7 billion per year. To put that figure into perspective, the UK spends four times that amount on foreign aid (0.7 per cent of its gross national income; approximately $15 billion in 2017). That means a quarter of the global emissions reductions necessary to avoid warming of 2°C by 2050 could be achieved with a quarter of the UK’s foreign aid budget.
Proactive Peak Population Positivity
Talking about population is becoming less taboo as people realise the impacts of human population size and the devastation we have unleashed as a result. It is no longer a subject that can be ignored, because the stakes are too high. People are slowly but surely realising that overpopulation is a crucial player and threat multiplier in the unfolding and unprecedented scale of change happening right now. There will always be a minority of people saying there is no issue with numbers, but they are becoming increasingly marginalised as rational thought and common sense win through. Those who deny that the issue of population should be addressed can be met with a full rebuttal of persuasive reason and logic. As momentum increases with discussion on the subject, a tipping point is being reached where it is normal, accepted and commonplace to talk about our numbers.
A lack of awareness and action by governments means that public awareness becomes key to the great positive changes a smaller population will bring. The list of the benefits a smaller population will bring for people all over the world is endless. The message of these benefits has to be conveyed in a way to capture the imagination and show the possible great future of a world with a happy and stable population. We are capable of accomplishing a rapid reduction in global fertility and we must make the dream a reality.
The momentum behind the awareness of overpopulation is building, but it is still a minor subject far from mainstream awareness. The more people talk about population, the more momentum will build and the more action will be taken. The results take time and are not visible in the way other actions are. Having a small family isn’t seen as being green in the same way as other actions are, but the true benefits are far greater.
When a critical mass is reached and begins to make a serious case for a reduction in population, it will become much easier for scientists, environmentalists, politicians, economists, and the general public to speak candidly about the critical need to address population. It will be possible to talk frankly about population.
The Greenest of the Green
Is it ethical to bring another child into our already overcrowded world? That is the question being asked by more and more people. The greatest sacrifice anyone can make for their fellow humans and the environment is making the decision of not having many children.
Asking the general public about ‘doing the right thing’ for the environment will produce suggestions about cutting down on eating meat, using less plastic, flying less or taking the train instead of the car. But most people don't say ‘don’t have children’. The public’s and the media’s recognition of the devastation caused by overpopulation is almost non-existent. ‘Top ten’ lists of things you can do to save the planet never usually mention having a small family.
A 2017 study (Wynes, 2017) into the best ways that a person can reduce their emissions shows that the single best way is to have one less child. This gave an average reduction in emissions for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent emission reductions per year. The next three ways were living car-free (2.4 CO2 tonnes saved per year), avoiding aeroplane travel (1.6 tonnes CO2 saved per round-trip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 CO2 tonnes saved per year). Adding together all of the other best ways to reduce emissions does not come close to the amount saved by having one less child.
Fig 12. (Guardian graphic) A comparison of the emissions reductions from various individual actions (Wynes, 2017)
The study throws up some startling statistics: a US family who choose to have one less child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to comprehensively recycle for the rest of their lives.
Save the Earth – Don’t Give Birth
The optimal carrying capacity of the world is generally accepted to be two to three billion people. All efforts should be made reach this figure as quickly as possible. Population reduction has to be done by creating the social conditions and awareness of our predicament, which requires a full explanation of it being in our collective best interests to have small families. When the general public has the full knowledge of the benefits brought by small families it will soon become the norm, and embraced as a benevolent action and something to be proud of.
The basic principle of being green at home has always been ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle’. The three Rs have been put in order of importance, so of it is better to reduce, or not use something in the first place. If you reduce, there is no need to reuse or recycle as you didn’t use it in the first place. This adage was never meant to apply to baby-making, but the best thing you can do is reduce the number of children you have.
A world with too many people is a simple fact that has a simple answer – an aim for all families to be small, with one, two or three children at the most. If this was understood, accepted and adopted, the world would become a far better place in the space of one or two generations. Many women are child-free by choice, knowing they are doing the best thing possible for the planet. The child-free movement is growing rapidly as we wake up to our precarious future. By being child-free you are making a statement and a real sacrifice. The child-free should be applauded, rewarded, congratulated and praised. A growing number of men and women can see the way the world is heading and make an informed choice to have a life without children of their own. An increasing number of people are seeing there are real dangers ahead, so why bring a child into a world with a future as unknown and precarious as the one we are facing?
Most people today with little or no understanding of the challenges the world faces would be astounded to hear that a couple could take such a decision. Awareness levels within society are so low that, for most people, making a decision based on the world’s future would seem incomprehensible and bizarre.
With the world becoming more depleted of resources, the decision not to add another burden on the world is the most selfless act anyone can make. To decide not to have children is to go against natural instincts and the expectations of friends, family and society.
The child-free have to accept that the lifelong bond of becoming a family will never happen. They will never watch their children go to school, grow up and become adults. They will never experience the pride of introducing their children to others or experience the joy of watching them play and discover new things. They won’t experience the pure, innocent love a child can give. It is a brave and emotionally hard choice to make. We all know there are many sacrifices to having children. We do it because it is the most natural, beautiful thing we can do. It is hard-wired in our DNA.
The Japanese, Germans and others are discovering some of the reasons why birth rates are falling. The cost of bringing up a child in the developed world is high, in terms of childcare costs and loss of earnings, putting many off having large families. Also, the traditional assumptions that having a family is something people are just expected to do are being lost. Technology and opportunities to enjoy your life in other ways are overtaking the natural urge to bring up a child.
The Morality of Childbirth
It is our moral responsibility to look after our planet. So is it the right thing to have a large family in a time of rapidly diminishing resources? Is it your human right to have as many children as you like? We have set the stage for the biggest collapse ever seen on the planet, potentially making the two world wars of the 20th century look like a playground fight. Is it right to bring more children into a world with these prospects?
Is it moral to bring another person into the world if you are fully aware of its impact? Deciding whether to have a baby is one of the biggest decisions the average person makes in their lives. Today, this decision is affecting our world in a way it never has done before. We should recognise those who choose not to have children as being benevolent to the world. They have made a sacrifice in a crowded world, so others can have space for their children. Those with children should be eternally grateful to the child-free.
Having children is undoubtedly fulfilling for most people. A family unit fulfils our basic instincts and desires and gives a purpose to your life. However, more and more people are also acknowledging the struggles and regrets that can arise from having children. This is hard to admit, but it is increasingly felt. Corinne Maier is a French psychoanalyst, mother and the author of the bestselling book, No Kids: 40 Good Reasons Not To Be A Mother. The book created a stir on its release in 2008. Maier referred to the wave of people being newly open about regretting parenthood as ‘a movement’. ‘The reality of motherhood,’ she writes, ‘is incontinence, boredom, weight gain, saggy breasts, depression, the end of romance, lack of sleep, dumbing down, career downturn, loss of sex drive, poverty, exhaustion and lack of fulfilment.’
Adoption
Bringing up someone else’s child through adoption is one of the greatest things anyone can do. There are over 130 million orphans in the world looking for a home. Adoption is a far more laudable decision than the alternative route of expensive and unpredictable IVF in a couple’s quest for children. If you can’t have children for whatever reason, or have chosen not to, why not bring up an adopted child as your own, giving him or her your love and the best future you can. You are helping a child escape from a precarious and uncertain position with no loving parents of their own and giving them a bright future. Also, by not having a child yourself, you are not personally adding to the overpopulated world and reducing the impacts of climate breakdown.
In the UK, to adopt a child is difficult and many hoops have to be jumped through, because of risks of the child being adopted by unfit adopters. But the logic here is twisted. Why is it that anyone can give birth without question? Is it right that a homeless, indebted drug addict can have as many children as they like? Is it their human right? Does their ‘right’ trump that of the child? What are the child’s rights? Currently, the state steps in at huge cost and the child is taken away if it is not looked after. But wouldn’t it be better for everyone if the child had not been born in the first place? Simple positive steps could easily be taken to make the system work better for everyone, but governments avoid going anywhere near a subject with controversy like this.
A Question for Your Friends
Many people are unaware of the overpopulation crisis that has been unfolding for such a long time. The challenge is to bring the issue back into the mainstream. We have to bring it into the open, talk about it positively and be optimistic of the benefits a small population will bring.
It is a great subject to bring up in conversation if approached tactfully. Once the subject has been raised, it is surprising how many people share the same thoughts, but were too shy to talk about it for fear of what others might think. As the topic has been neglected for so long, many people do not know exactly where they stand, or what can or can’t be said. After reading this book, the arguments and reasons for lack of conversation have been covered extensively, and all the answers are given to the questions some people may throw at you. As the subject is, unfortunately, still somewhat controversial you really have no idea of a person’s opinion until the subject is broached.
Ask someone the question, ‘What is the single most beneficial thing you can do, in your lifetime, to benefit the environment?’ and the answer will rarely be, ‘Don’t have children’ or ‘have a small family’. The most environmentally aware might answer correctly. Most people will answer, ‘Don’t eat meat’, ‘Don’t fly’, or something similar. Of course, these are beneficial to the environment, and everyone should be aiming to reduce their consumption. Only when they have exhausted all of their guesses, answer with ‘have a small family’. Such is the lack of public awareness of the connection between population and environmentalism that the best answer is rarely given.
If you have children, they might follow the same no flying, no driving, vegan lifestyle as you and have a low impact, but they might not. And they may have children themselves, redoubling the damage ad infinitum. Having no children ends your environmental impact when you die. So even if you’re not the ultimate green and you drive to work and take a flight once a year, your impact will be finite. One less child is an entire lifetime of consumption prevented.
The harsh truth to accept by anyone who has a large family is that they are damaging the environment solely through their numbers. They may be environmentally altruistic in every other way, but their offspring may not be the same. The act of introducing a new human life into the world, with an entire lifetime of consumption that entails in the 21st century, is the most environmentally damaging thing that any one individual can do. To say this to a young couple, planning their life ahead with a family and all the joy that brings, is very tricky, but does that mean we should ignore it? Environmental awareness of the major consequences of procreation is absent from mainstream conversation. It isn’t part of our education, and it isn’t acknowledged or talked about nearly as much as it should be.
Gay for Gaia
With the world on the edge of the precipice, homosexuality is one of the most natural and attractive ways to mitigate overpopulation as you will not biologically reproduce (though of course you may have children through surrogacy or artificial insemination). Given all of the other ways of helping the planet, through enforced reduction of consumption, or the incentives to have smaller families, being gay is the easiest of all the options. Being gay makes you very, very green. You are doing more than anyone to help the environment simply by not adding to the number of humans because of your sexuality.
The Ageing Population: Another Demographic Dividend
The world is ageing rapidly, with ageing populations growing in Japan, Europe and many developed countries. That prospect has generated a number of concerns (from economists, as usual), from labour shortages and wage inflation, to increased taxes and healthcare costs. Economic arguments have been made that birth rates must increase to support and underwrite these costs of old age, but this is short-sighted and simply not the case: in fact, the opposite is true. The ageing population provides many benefits, with most people being active and productive for the majority of their lives right through to old age. The benefits of a smaller population far outweigh any benefits brought by increasing birth rates. As lifestyles and healthcare services improve, populations live longer, healthier lives, which means their productive life is also longer, benefitting society.
There is an argument that says we will need to keep the population high to look after the older generation. It is true that as population levels rise, so does the number of elderly people needing care, but there is no shortage of labour for this purpose: the opposite is the case. As automation and technology have increased, jobs have disappeared by the million, leaving a massive workforce looking for employment. With 40–50 per cent of jobs predicted to disappear by 2050, there will be huge opportunities for the care sector, and for people who decide to care for their own parents in later life.
In a 2003 study: ‘Is the ageing population a threat to health care?’ Professor Raymond Tallis of Manchester University found 80 per cent of men over 85 were living at home, successfully looking after their personal care unaided. Even half the 95-plus age group were still independent. There is concern that fertility rates are below replacement levels in some countries, but this should be encouraged, not seen as something to worry about. Only when population has reduced to the carrying capacity should any effort be put into returning to fertility replacement levels.
Many elderly people are physically fit and active, do voluntary work and provide free childcare through looking after grandchildren, immensely benefitting society at virtually no cost. Young children do none of these things – the opposite is true. They require full-time supervision, usually by paid adults, and so are a burden on the economy. At the other end of the age spectrum, most pensioners are financially secure, and financial help is also given down the generations (not up) on average until age 75. There is a huge raft of expenditure supporting young people – fifteen years or more of full-time education, child benefits, and costs caused by high youth unemployment and crime. Contrary to commonly held views, the old are far more beneficial than the young. With increases in levels of education often to degree level, children are a drag on the economy and of no benefit until they are in their twenties.
Female Empowerment
‘Wherever women are given political control of their bodies, where they have the vote, education, appropriate medical facilities and they can read and have rights and so on, the birth rate falls – there are no exceptions to that.’
David Attenborough
Project Drawdown produced the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming, with 80 ‘no regrets’ solutions – actions that make sense to take regardless of their climate impact since they have intrinsic benefits to communities and economies. The number one solution is a combination of family planning and educating girls. Together, this would reduce CO2 emissions by 120 gigatons by 2050 – more than on- and offshore wind power combined.
These figures confirm what charities such as Population Matters have been saying for decades: no matter how many tech solutions and CO2 reducing initiatives are tried, emissions will keep increasing while human numbers grow. One of the simplest and most effective solutions is a combination of educating girls and the universal provision of access to family planning, which both slow birth rates. A lower birth rate gives families an easier life as resources are shared among fewer people, plus CO2 emissions are dramatically reduced.
Giving women the freedom to decide when, and if, they fall pregnant is the greatest gift that can be given. Having the security of knowing that you can make that decision completely on your own is incredibly empowering. Given this power, women instinctively choose longer intervals between births as they know they don't want to become pregnant again soon after giving birth. Mothers want to give their children the best they can, and this becomes possible when there is a longer space between births. Also, women will choose to have their first child later, at a time of their choosing, as they may not feel ready to become a mother at a young age. These freely made choices benefit everyone, and should be available to every woman. These choices naturally result in smaller, happier families, through freedom of choice and without imposition or coercion.
Feminists the world over have been fighting the cause for empowering women. Feminists should be standing shoulder to shoulder with environmentalists:
Equality leads to empowerment.
Empowerment leads to choosing to have a smaller family.
A smaller family leads to a stable environment.
A stable environment leads to better standards of living.
When living standards drop as a result of famine, war or social unrest, women and children are the first to suffer. Smaller families and empowered, educated women reduce the likelihood of social unrest, resulting in a virtuous circle. The feminist cause should be behind the population reduction message more than ever as it is a crucial step in keeping the environment safe for the future.
Family Planning
Contraception is one of the greatest human achievements. It has allowed us unlimited sex without it resulting in pregnancy, which has liberated women throughout the world.
There are fifteen types of contraception: condoms, combined pill, progesterone pill, implant, injection, hormonal coil, copper coil, diaphragm, cap, female condoms, patch, vaginal ring, female sterilisation, male sterilisation and fertility awareness. Long-acting reversible contraception methods include the implant, the copper coil and the hormonal coil. Implants give the certainty of knowing you won’t fall pregnant for a time period of your choice – from six months to two years.
A young woman with two children from a low-income family struggling to cope with day-to-day life has a weight lifted off her mind with the knowledge that she won’t fall pregnant again for the next twelve months. She will feel relief that she no longer has to worry about having the burden of pregnancy, childbirth and another mouth to feed, together with knowing she can give her full attention to the two children she already has. She and her partner can opt for another twelve-month contraceptive, and have another child when and if she chooses. She has been given something priceless: power over her own reproduction. She can choose and she has been liberated.
Vasectomies are perhaps the greatest form of contraception. If you’re a man of a certain age, or a man who knows for certain you don’t want to father any, or any more, children – have a vasectomy. Writing as a man who has made this decision, I can tell you it is extremely liberating and I’m so glad I had it done. A quick visit to the surgery, a couple of snips and you’re on your way home, knowing that you will never bring another person into the world. It is quite an odd feeling, knowing that you are no longer fertile; there is a sense of loss. But it also frees you for exactly the same reason – you will never cause an unwanted pregnancy! It’s also an amazing gift to women. Safe in the knowledge that you cannot become pregnant by your partner, you never have to take another pill of use any form of contraception.
Another advantage of vasectomies is that they end the need for any ‘product’. There is no longer any cost, by-product or waste from contraception. There are no more chemicals and side effects from pills, no injections and no costly condoms heading to landfill. Vasectomies should, like all forms of contraception, be universally available and free.
Unplanned Pregnancies
A lack of education and access to family planning results in unplanned pregnancies. If worldwide average fertility was reduced to two children per female (compared with 2.37 today), there would be 777 million fewer people to feed by 2050. If all unintended pregnancies resulting in births were avoided, human population size in 2100 would be three billion people less than one assuming no similar reduction in birth rates. This is an enormous figure and would change the world dramatically for the better - for women, for families, and for the planet itself.
Every child should be a wanted child. A wanted child will be a cared for child. It is goal that could easily be reached if enough resources and determination were given to this simple, humane and benevolent cause. An estimated 250 million women have no access to contraception, contributing to the one in four unplanned births worldwide and 50 million abortions each year. Half of these abortions are performed clandestinely, killing 68,000 women in the process.
40 per cent of all pregnancies, a total of 85 million per year, are unintended. This figure is coincidentally almost the same as the annual rise in population, of 80 million. The dangerous increase in human population, the root cause of virtually all our crises, could be stopped at a stroke, by empowering women and giving them the ability to choose using contraception.
Education
Education, plus access to family planning, empowers women. Even if you are empowered and have access to family planning, you still need to know the full facts about the benefits of having a small family. You’ve been given a new car, the keys and a full tank, but unless you know how to drive, it’s not much use.
Cultures vary greatly around the world with different beliefs and ways of living that are often deeply ingrained. Changing whole communities’, and even countries’, ways of living is not easy, but it is an essential part of tackling population growth in the most vulnerable countries. This piece of the puzzle has been ignored by some, such as Hans Rosling, who saw wealth creation as the only prerequisite for stable family sizes. But culture cannot be ignored, especially if, as in Madagascar, the desired family size is more than a dozen. If Rosling’s theory of increased wealth was applied but cultural values didn’t change, all that would result would be families with twelve children and high consumption per person, leading to the worst of both worlds.
Sheryl WuDunn, the Pulitzer Prize-winning co-author of Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, says: ‘When women are educated, they tend to marry later in life, to have children later in life, and to have fewer children. In effect, you have a form of population control that’s peaceful, voluntary, and efficient. Plus, educated women do better in business, raising economic growth rates, and lowering societal conflict. If we could achieve universal literacy for women, we'd have a much better shot at peace around the world.’
The more people talk about the benefits of female empowerment the more it will become socially acceptable and validated. Education from a young age is important too. Once someone understands all of the relationships between a family size and the state of the planet, they will remember the information for the rest of their lives and be able to pass on the message to their own children.
Disempowering Men
Facing facts (and writing as a man), we have to admit that it is predominantly men who have messed things up in the world. We’re not all bad, but given the right circumstances some of us become power-crazed violent thugs who start wars that kill millions. Men are far more aggressive and dangerous than women. In the US, for example, the most likely cause of death of a young man is being shot by another young man. As the climate continues to break down and population increases, so does the chance of war. In the interests of handing some power to women, we can also take some power away from men.
Simple Change
‘What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of the billions who are its victims.’
– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Population is a large piece of the jigsaw, but there are many other pieces to consider that will improve our prospects in a rapidly changing world. Climate breakdown is a symptom of the wider disease of the combined overshoots of overconsumption and overpopulation. We are increasingly recognising climate breakdown and have taken some steps in the right direction, but we are not seriously addressing the fundamental cause. Overpopulation and biodiversity loss have been relegated to the back of the queue. A global change in economics is needed to fundamentally alter the way we think about the world.
We can get by with less. We can be happier with less.
Peace, Stability, Security, Movement of People
Today, more than ever, we must aim for peace, security and stability, all of which are made more difficult to achieve as the number of people increases. In many countries today, political decisions and election results are increasingly influenced by the topic of migration, the root cause of which is overpopulation. The world today would be a very different place if our population was stable. We would be in a calm, peaceful world – but we are not. Across the world today, politics is changing and there is a dangerous undercurrent of anger from many sides, with a rise of the far right, caused ultimately by the large number of people simply wanting to move and have a better life.
There has always been movement of people across continents, but today it is happening more than ever. The scale of people moving can cause resentment among the local population and lead to tensions on both sides. The local population is unhappy at their way of life being disrupted by an influx of people with a different culture and language. In the longer term, local people may also be angered by a loss of jobs as they are undercut on wages by the incomers willing to work for less money. From the perspective of the people arriving, they mean no harm and are simply looking for a better way of life.
If we really wanted to change our ways for the better, we could easily do so. For example, look at the amount of money spent annually on the US defence budget – just under $700 billion for 2018, a ludicrously high amount, more than the entire GDP of Saudi Arabia. £700 billion is 200 times the amount given by the benevolent billionaire Bill Gates through the Gates Foundation. Just imagine what that money could do if it was spent on something good, just for one year. Then imagine what could be done if it was spent every year. Would the reputation of the US change if it spent all of that money on aid and solving the climate crisis?
The World Economic Forum (World Economic Forum, 2016) reports regularly on world events resulting from climate breakdown that threaten world stability. These problems could be solved, and the US defence budget by itself could bring stability to the world. That money could supply healthcare and family planning to everyone on the planet, solving the overpopulation crisis at a stroke. The schemes possible with this amount of money would be astounding: forests across the globe could be replanted, plastics could be recovered from the oceans, species saved from extinction, and technology could be deployed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This could happen through a simple change in policy and mind-set in the United States. It could be done. But the realistic chances that this could happen are close to zero, so deeply ingrained in the collective American psyche is that ‘guns are good’.
Debt Forgiveness
The developing world is burdened with unrepayable debt, which keeps countries in poverty and results in incomes being so low that simple family planning is unaffordable. This creates a negative cycle where large families keep families in poverty. Debt forgiveness would enable these countries to rebuild their economies and allow contraception to be affordable and available. Education levels would rise, leading to further reductions in pregnancy rates, allowing women to be more productive, rather than being tied to managing large families. This would ultimately benefit everyone.
Steady State Economy - Bioeconomics
‘All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life’
‘Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty’
Albert Einstein
Our current economic system is predicated on growth – ‘Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell’, as US environmental author Edward Abbey said. Capitalism, in its current form, has run its course. Before we became super-consumers and were working safely within the boundaries of the Earth’s resources, capitalism was fine. But today we have gone too far and we have to stop before the planet stops us. Capitalism has served its purpose and it is time for a change. A steady state economy is needed, requiring the existing system to be fundamentally changed – no easy task with something so ingrained, but a way must be found to keep the economists and the planet itself happy. Rather than sit back and wait for the inevitable economic crash, a controlled and measured economic slowdown should be engineered to keep living standards and personal wealth at a sustainable level, while simultaneously slowing resource use. Redistribution of wealth can be implemented, where those in wealthy nations would, on average, have to adjust their consumption levels downwards – achieved through a radical political transformation where we are incentivised to do so. We don’t need to consume as we currently do to have a great life.
There should be more awareness of personal consumption levels; we should not be spending and consuming as unnecessarily as we are. Shopping for pleasure should be discouraged. We should be proud of how little we consume, not how much. Until relatively recently, holidays were only taken by the very rich. Everyone else had to work hard just to make ends meet. Today, holidays are the norm, even if only for a few weeks per year. So the cash-rich and time-poor population spends huge amounts of money on extravagant trips to distant destinations. This may happen several times a year. Wouldn’t it be better to have longer, more relaxed, holidays rather than mad rushes to overcrowded airports for mini-breaks?
We have to live within our means and transition to a steady state economy. In the words of Professor Tim Jackson’s 2009 book, we can have Prosperity Without Growth. We would be far more prosperous without growth, aiming for collaboration, not competition. The economy should take into account the true value and benefits of nature, or Bioeconomics as Tony Juniper and others call it. The best way to prosper is to live in a stable and steady state providing plenty for everyone.
A stable economy can exist without relying on perpetual growth. There are many simple answers waiting to be implemented now: development aid could be used for solar cooking to save burning wood, for example. Countries could follow Costa Rica’s example by giving up its military spending and using the money saved for positive purposes.
Returning to population: and the same style of incentives used to change to renewable energy could be applied to reducing fertility levels. Answers are being sought, with industries and technologies actively investing in ways to reduce energy use, energy sources moving rapidly away from carbon, and recycling rates increasing. Population growth is so far being left out of the equation. Including population growth into the equation by financially promoting small families is a key way to achieve a steady state economy. The smaller families would be happier and better off economically as well.
Universal Basic Income
The idea of a Universal Basic Income is a great one. We have a National Healthcare Service (in the UK at least) providing free healthcare when needed. We also have free education for every child up to the age of sixteen. With job security being lost to automation, there simply won’t be enough full-time jobs to go round. So why not extend the national provision to giving every citizen the security of a basic income too? People would know they wouldn’t go hungry and could get by without being pressured to find employment where there may be none available.
Today, workforces around the world are treated as nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold like any other product. This has taken away human dignity for many. A 9 to 5 job is a recent phenomenon of the Industrial Age, introduced in Britain for factory workers. Historically, in times of plenty, you would hunt and gather; when you were satisfied and content, you had leisure time. Why do we force a strict regime of 9 to 5 with a few weeks’ leave per year?
A basic income would just cover essentials, and there would still be an incentive to work for household goods, holidays and other luxuries. But we have to ask ourselves, is work so important? Surely time is more valuable. Why spend your life slaving away in an office or a factory rather than having time for more productive, artistic or educational purposes? In an age of automation, it is pointless creating ‘non-jobs’ – meaningless, worthless jobs created just to create a job when one needn’t exist. A universal basic income would give better life chances for everyone and society would become happier, less stressed and more equitable.
Don’t Work so Hard, Live Your Life
Efficiencies made by utilising the ‘internet of things’ will lead to incredible possibilities and advances. Smartphones have appeared and given us instant access to every single piece of information – a phenomenal achievement, unimaginable only a few decades ago. This technology can educate the world, and education improves lives and helps reduce birth rates. Progress in energy technology has made wind and solar power competitive in price and will soon make fossil fuels a thing of the past. Electric cars will be driving themselves, creating the biggest change in transport since the car replaced the horse and cart. We will look back at the time when we allowed people to get behind the wheel of a two-ton metal box and drive on a public road, when millions of people died every year through traffic accidents. The transport of the future will be clean, fast and efficient, unlike the dirty chaos of today.
Advances in technology also bring dangers of over-reliance. As we advance technologically, we take away our ability to survive in the natural world. We should be able to do both and there are dangers if we can’t, especially regarding electricity. Power can be cut off instantly, leaving every electronic device dead. In today’s connected world, this would be catastrophic on a large scale, with communication, transactions, lighting and power cut off in an instant. We should, as far as possible, get back to a partial reliance on localism. Towns should be able to get by on what they can produce themselves, even if it is at a basic level. Not doing this leaves communities vulnerable to events outside their control.
Economists predict massive job losses will continue as automation, artificial intelligence, robotics, and other technologies continue to take over. Accountants, doctors, lawyers, teachers, bureaucrats, and financial analysts may all become redundant. One Oxford University (Frey, 2013) study suggests that 47 per cent of US jobs could be lost before the year 2040.
Global capitalism does not need half of the world’s population. Jobs are becoming scarcer as automation makes millions redundant. The world’s largest ever generation of young people are increasingly dissatisfied with their lives as a lack of productive careers stifles their ambition and breeds resentment of the older generations. Countries such as Spain have youth unemployment at 50 per cent. This is one of the main contributors to movement of people, but there are fewer places to go, with fewer opportunities, as space becomes scarcer.
In 1930, the renowned British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that within a century, economic growth would mean there would be a typical working week of fifteen hours, and people’s main dilemma would be what to do with all that free time. He did not foresee the massive continued growth in population that would need immense efforts to build cities and increase land use. He also didn’t realise the strength of marketing, advertising and the greed of people and corporations that always want more of everything.
The invention of washing machines, vacuum cleaners and other gadgets brought huge time savings to households across the world. But they also resulted in social pressure for everyone to wear cleaner clothes and have cleaner houses. Time was simply diverted to other tasks. The same has happened with computers and automation – we are all still expected socially to work hard.
The Western approach of hard work and the 9 to 5 job is embedded in our culture, which we have imposed across the globe as a symbol of success. This is indoctrination to keep up the pretence that all labour is needed. In fact, many jobs are tedious and unnecessary, just there to exploit a market and make a profit. But work is ingrained, encouraged and expected. For many people, their ‘jobs’ are nothing more than something that has to be done to make ends meet, to pay the bills and feel secure, with little satisfaction or purpose gained.
The Western work ethic says you should work hard every day. If you don’t, you are frowned upon and seen as a burden to society. There is a culture of being permanently busy and working hard to impress others. But why do we need to work so long and so hard? Surely, in the 21st century, we are advanced enough as a civilisation to reduce our work and increase our leisure? Building more just adds more to our overconsumption and the destruction of the planet. Those who sit around and read a book or play some music are far friendlier to the planet than those who fly away on holiday or buy a new car.
Non-westernised cultures do not have this work ethic, as throughout the millennia it hasn’t been needed – why struggle if you don’t have to? Our mind-set needs to change and it will have to. In the past, if you wanted some fruit, you’d just pick it from the tree. We shouldn’t be afraid and see it as a disaster when jobs are lost. We should embrace it and enjoy our new-found freedoms. While populations are still high and growing it won’t be easy, as mouths will need feeding and the infrastructure needs building and maintaining. The sooner population stabilises, the sooner life will be easier for everyone.
We should aim for a roof over everyone’s head at minimal cost and adequate sustenance for all. Everything after that is a luxury, so do we really need it? We like to work; it gives us a sense of achievement and we should do it for our self-esteem and personal well-being. But you can go too far. Why is it always ‘hard’ work? Why do we impose these stressful burdens on ourselves? With automation and mechanisation we should be heading in the opposite direction. How about ‘easy’ work?
Maximum salaries should also be introduced. Anyone earning over five times the national average really should think of the morality of their salary. Are they really that much better than the other employees earning ten or twenty times less than they do? Do these high earners seriously believe they are worth that much? It comes down to human nature again; if you see someone else with a similar salary then it must be okay. A voluntarily agreed company maximum, or multiple wage ratio limits, should be set by companies. The lower the maximum, the prouder a company and its workforce would be. It would be a badge of honour for a company that values its workforce. All CEOs should spend two weeks per year working in the distribution centre or checkout area and receive the same pay.
Human labour is currently being used incredibly inefficiently. The world is full of jobs and activities that shouldn’t exist. We are trapped by debt and we have made up jobs to suit our extravagant lifestyles. There are too many of what professor of anthropology David Graeber calls ‘bullshit jobs’ (Graeber, 2016) :
‘In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.’
Millions of watch and take part in sport. Vast amounts of time and money are spent and wasted on sport. Football, in particular, is a prime example where young players are treated as god-like heroes and worshipped by millions. They are paid vast amounts of money to kick a ball around a field. The 100 highest-paid footballers of 2016 were paid cumulative earnings of over $3 billion, according to Forbes (Forbes Corporate Communications, 2017). Incredible achievements from the sportspeople, but could they be encouraged to donate half of their money to good causes?
Great things could, and should, be achieved with our spare capacity. The Western world has more spare capacity than we know what to do with, so we make things up in ways unimaginable 100 years ago. We are wasting our last few decades of stability on trivial pursuits. We could have sponsorship where thousands of people set aside a day to plant tens of thousands of trees. These events would have a direct positive effect on the environment – millions of trees could be planted this way, at a tiny cost, to the benefit of everyone.
As population reduces, there won’t be the need for so many of today’s jobs. As the need for new housing declines, so will the need for builders, planners and architects. This is a benefit, not a crisis, as more people are freed to live lives of their own choosing.
100 years ago, the majority of the population worked in agriculture. In developed countries today, it is below 5 per cent. If we switched overnight from then to now, most of the population would be without work. If that huge number of people were put to use in employment specifically ‘for the benefit of the world’, imagine what could be achieved. Instead we have salespeople and parking attendants. This is a tragic waste of human capacity. Immense projects could be achieved that would benefit future generations and fulfil those involved in their creation.
Policy and Law
There are laws and policies designed to protect the environment and limit pollution. There are no laws, and very few policies, to limit the number of consumers. If logic were applied, lowering the number of children per family would be a priority. The needs of people should be taken into account, so a way should be found to encourage smaller families for the common good without hurting the public’s rights and feelings. Policies should be introduced to slow and eventually reverse the size of the global population, within a framework of human rights, creating a means to reduce humanity’s impact and protect biodiversity.
Currently we have laws concerning the consumption side of the equation, but none for the number of consumers’ side. All policies and laws regarding families should make having a family a thing of real responsibility, something to be proud of and a decision made only when the parents know they have everything they need, financially and emotionally, to bring a child into the world.
There are many simple measures that could be introduced. All foreign aid should be given in tandem with the implementation of sustainable population policies. Family planning and education should be part of foreign aid, with long-term facilities implemented until countries are able to provide their own freely available reproductive services. Cash incentives for child-bearing, as practised by some countries with sub-replacement fertility, should be stopped. Singapore, with a fertility rate of 1.3, encourages births and pays over $7,400 for every child born (Reuters staff, 2017).
Child benefit in the UK rewards families for giving birth with money given to parents of all children under the age of 16. Every first child in the UK is eligible for over £1,000 per year, with a smaller sum for each additional child. From its beginnings in 1798 until the Beveridge Report of 1942, there has been continuous provision of financial aid to families.
The money was designed to address poverty and ‘advance the potential effect on nutrition, as a means of encouraging families to keep children in education’. In the 21st century the well-meaning origins are outdated, as malnutrition has been replaced by childhood obesity, with a third of all UK children now classed as overweight. The price of food has fallen to an all-time low and we are feeding our children too much, rather than too little, as in World War II when the report was written. There would be an outcry if any of these benefits were removed, but is this fair?
A simple way of discouraging large family sizes in the UK would be to double the amount given for the first child, giving the family the security of knowing their child will be provided for, continue with a set amount for the second child, but not give further benefits for further children. This would encourage smaller families. Any parents wanting large families are free to have them, but at the parents’, not the state’s, expense.
The Happiness Index
Economic growth is incompatible with planetary limits. Economic growth is leading to an unhappy planet, so economic growth is not positive. We should therefore be aiming for environmental growth and economic contraction. How do you measure happiness? The best measure devised so far is the Happiness Index. This measure was proposed by then UK Prime Minister David Cameron at the beginning of his term in 2010. A better name for the Happiness Index is needed, plus a Happiness Index for the Environment too, to move away from the anthropocentric side, though a Happy Environment Index would naturally lead to a happy populace. Combine the two, and a happy environment leads to a happy person.
Good jobs with low levels of economic inequality are needed. Everyone should be able to find secure, stable employment that pays at least enough to provide a decent standard of living. Low levels of economic inequality lead to a feeling of social fairness, resulting in less crime and a more benevolent society. Guaranteed health, education and other public service provision is a prerequisite for all other social and economic goals. Our prosperity and that of future generations depends on a healthy environment. These goals lead to life satisfaction, happiness and well-being: improving people’s lives should be the ultimate aim of public policy above basic economics.
Once we overcome the superficial greed of consumerism we might realise that true happiness cannot be bought.
World Charter for Nature
The rights of the planet should take priority over human rights because those human rights depend on the planet.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, The United Nations World Charter for Nature has been out of sight since 1982. It should be brought into force. If just two of the clauses were enforced, action could be taken to stop countless acts of environmental damage:
‘The genetic viability on the earth shall not be compromised; the population levels of all life forms, wild and domesticated, must be at least sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary habitats shall be safeguarded.’
On an individual level, everyone has the right to act and protect the environment, with the full backing of the UN, given that:
‘Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.’
If the Charter had been followed, human population would not have been allowed to rise as it has, and the rights of nature would have been upheld. With our current system, the natural world has no representative. The natural world is relegated and crushed in the tsunami of money and capitalism. Without any representative to legally enforce the Charter, nature has been shuffled off to a backroom and the Charter sits quietly in a cupboard gathering dust while we carry on regardless.
One valiant attempt to keep the Charter alive comes from marine wildlife saviours the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which acts according to it. Whenever challenged against actions taken to protect whales, the Sea Shepherd simply states the Charter – and wins. Other organisations should take the same line.
‘If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’
Garrett Hardin
Rights of nature and the environment should be revalued to equal, or surpass, those of humans, as we cannot survive without nature. Ecosystems must be valued; an ‘eco-democracy’ could be created. Forests are cut down and ecosystems destroyed because they are not given a monetary value in their living form. It is a failure that governments and economists have not given nature a value; profit is all that matters. The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature is a growing network of organizations and individuals committed to the universal adoption and implementation of legal systems that recognize, respect and enforce “Rights of Nature”. The Alliance holds ethics tribunals which ‘provide systemic Rights of Nature based alternatives to the false solutions and failed negotiations of governing Nation States’. Bodies such as the UN should be following the Alliance’s lead and protecting all remaining forested areas as a top priority as they are crucial in the fight against climate breakdown.
In an attempt to recognise this truth, the UN created the Harmony with Nature program (United Nations, n.d.), an initiative that aims to build momentum for an ecocentric worldview, including ‘Nature’s Rights’. The UN also initiated International Mother Earth Day, which is celebrated every year, but is more of a token gesture than any true resolution to protect nature and the natural world.
There are some positive signs that nature is being recognised for the true value it has. The Chinese Great Green Wall has been battling the encroachment of the Gobi Desert for years, with 66 billion trees planted in the past few decades. The second Great Green Wall is the 7,700-kilometre wall of trees running through 11 countries along the southern frontier of the Sahara Desert. The walls aim to restore 50 million hectares of land, provide food security for 20 million people, create 350,000 jobs, and sequester 250 million tons of carbon.
Everlasting Charities
Can you imagine a time when Save the Children, Oxfam and the WWF cease to exist?
Or are they a permanent fixture in a world that we know we cannot fix?
Accepting these charities as a permanent fixture means you accept that the issues they deal with will always be there. It is another example of an ingrained culture. While human population increases, these charities are fighting causes they know they can never win. If they accepted overpopulation and proactively acted on the knowledge of how everyone would benefit from smaller family sizes they would make a real change. Yet only a fraction of these charities ever mentions human overpopulation.
All wildlife charities exist because of the human pressure put on the wildlife – a cynic would say they don’t mention overpopulation as it keeps them in business. If human population and encroachment was reduced, so would the pressure put on the wildlife, and the environment would recover naturally.
Inspirational Charities – Effective Altruism
There are thousands of people and charities brave enough to take action on population. Population Matters is the main UK charity trying to get the population message across, with incredible patrons including Sir David Attenborough, Jane Goodall, Paul Ehrlich and Chris Packham. In the US, the Population Reference Bureau has similar aims.
A growing number of charities and organisations are working with marginalised and vulnerable communities to address their basic needs and conserve the ecosystems upon which their livelihoods depend. They can see the crucial role of including family planning as a key part of their work and integrate it with their other endeavours, with inspirational and beneficial results. Unlike the WWF and others, they don’t spend millions on their headquarters and executive salaries, and aren’t constrained by bureaucracy. The disparate groups should come together under an umbrella where a louder, unified voice will be heard.
When you are looking to give to a charity, it is human nature to respond to the plight of the polar bear or the starving child. But if you really want to get to the heart of the matter and help all charities in one go, including children, animals, oceans, trees and wildlife, then support a charity that includes family planning as a core function.
Effective Altrusim is a way of using reason and evidence to do the most good. This is a great idea as it helps you to choose the best way of supporting a cause. Unfortunately the logic is often twisted. True, using effective altruism you will choose the charity which does the best for the lives of people or wildlife, but if you save 1,000 lives, you are effectively adding to the problem rather than helping it. Any charity or cause that helps with lives should also help with the sustainability of the cause, as with the charities below.
Blue Ventures
Blue Ventures supports tropical coastal communities to manage their fisheries and marine resources sustainably. The charity started working in Madagascar, today it also works directly / through partners in the Comoros, Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Indonesia, Timor-Leste and Belize. Blue Ventures were described by Sir David Attenborough as ‘a model for everyone working to conserve the natural life-support systems of our troubled planet’.
Beginning with marine conservation as its main focus, it soon became apparent that unless unmet community health and family planning needs were addressed, the ability of men and women to engage in fisheries management would remain limited. Blue Ventures took the holistic approach of giving access to reproductive health services together with full education for children and adults alongside their fisheries management initiatives.
Their holistic way of working is referred to as ‘Population-Health-Environment’ because of the way that such an integrated portfolio of programs reflects the relationships between people, their health and the environment. When you look at the transformation taking place in these communities, the happiness of the people who can see the results in front of them, you ask yourself, why isn’t this happening everywhere?
The communities are reaping the benefits - they are experiencing better health, are more able to provide for their children, and are managing their marine resources for generations to come. If ever there was an organisation whose approach should be copied and rolled out across the world, Blue Ventures has the perfect template to use.
CHASE Africa and Dandelion Africa
CHASE Africa’s name explains what they do – ‘Community Health and Sustainable Environment’ and comes from the understanding that a healthy community depends on a sustainable environment.
Founder of Dandelion Africa, Wendo Aszed, grew up in the rural communities of the Rift Valley in Kenya and was lucky enough to experience the benefits an education can bring. She grew up with the male domination and the FGM that girls experienced, which is seen as something to aspire to as part of becoming a woman. She saw how little education the communities have, without any knowledge of family planning and the desire of girls to have as many children as they can. The women see being beaten by their husbands as a good thing; a sign that their husbands still want them. She decided to make a change, founding Dandelion Africa at the age of 30 and helping thousands of women gain access to contraception that they didn’t even know existed before.
Enabling women to choose the number and spacing of their children and helping communities to create a robust environment gives people a chance to leave poverty behind. CHASE delivers integrated healthcare and family planning services, especially to marginalised communities in rural areas. They provide environmental education, plant trees in schools and national parks, and integrate healthcare and family planning with environmentally sustainable projects.
By bringing population, health and the environment together they create better conservation and human welfare outcomes than single-sector approaches. When a poor family in a marginalised community is healthy, and can decide on the spacing and number of the children they want, the environment is robust and sustainable. They have more time available for growing food and earning income, their efforts are better rewarded, and they leave poverty more quickly.
This is achieved by giving women in poor communities a chance to use family planning, provided through mobile clinics. Family planning, although crucial, is only part of the story. The communities are educated about sustainability through programs for agriculture – trees are planted by schools in communities where the mobile clinics operate, and forests are restored in National Parks.
Peak Human
How and when will human numbers finally peak? Had we listened to Paul Ehrlich and taken action back in the late 1960s and 70s, population would already have peaked and the world wouldn’t be in the mess it is in today.
Given that a sustainable population at medium levels of consumption is below three billion, the sooner we reach ‘peak human’ the better. The circumstances of the peak’s arrival and of an eventual population reduction, which will inevitably happen, are in our own hands. With increasing per capita consumption, together with population increase, we are in overshoot in many areas, so we should be proactively lowering fertility rates as fast as possible across the globe.
A small variation in the average number of births per woman makes an immense difference in long-term population size. An increase of 0.5 in the average number of births per woman from today’s rate would see world population increasing to over 16 billion people. But a decrease by 0.5 births would see a population peak of 8.4 billion by 2050, decreasing to today’s levels by 2100. Given that we are already in overshoot of resources that the planet can provide, we should be making all efforts possible to head for the lower figure.
Overpopulation and overconsumption are the greatest threats civilisation has ever faced, and the coming fifty to a hundred years will be like no other. Our species, and the ones we manage to save along with ourselves, will come out the other side happier and in sync with nature, despite living in a ravaged and recovering landscape, and will see the currently unfolding century for the incredible transformation that it was.
‘All for One and One for All’ has never had such significance in terms of one planet for all, one child for all, all standing together against a common threat. If today’s generation chose to have just one child, total world population by 2100 would decline to below 3.5 billion – cutting our consumption in half. Along with transitioning to a smart steady-state economy that supports prosperity but cuts waste, population decline can help humanity return to genuinely sustainable numbers, and ultimately return to a stable replacement rate with a two-child average.
At times of great danger we have to work together for a common cause. Differences must be put to one side to overcome a greater threat. We are all aboard the same ship and there are no lifeboats.
Projections
We are climbing up a very steep mountain. When we reach the top is up to us; the height of the peak is also up to us. Currently the mountain is approaching eight billion humans high, and still growing.
Changing the path of the projections for growth is a long-term project because of demographic momentum and the length of human lifespans. Population reduction is a long-term goal that will take several generations to achieve, but the sooner birth rates begin to fall, the sooner the benefits will be felt. It is in our own interest to head as fast as we practically can towards a lower population. Peak human may not be too far off, but we cannot be sure. Can we stabilise the population by 2060? How about 2040?
The projections don’t know where we will end up, and vary by billions. In the United Nations population projections, the ‘medium variant’ assumes incremental decreases in global child-bearing to the year 2100, from today’s global average total fertility rate of 2.2 children per woman to 1.99 by 2100. If these assumptions prove accurate, 3.7 billion additional people are expected in global population, with a still-growing 11.2 billion. The UN Population Division 2017 key findings predict a population of 9.8 billion (95 per cent certainty range: 9.4–10.2 billion) by 2050 and 10.9 billion (range at 9.6 to 13.2 billion) by 2100.
These findings assume two things: first that there will be no unforeseen natural or manmade catastrophic event that will reduce population; second, that no worldwide action is taken to purposefully reduce birth rates. If the current total fertility rate was reduced by half a child per woman today, we could reach the lowest maximum predicted population, of 8.6 billion, before 2050. This would be possible if governments and organisations around the world acted today. It would be a magnificent achievement, the greatest gift from today for the future generations. It hasn’t a hope of being achieved with the current laissez-faire consensus. But it could be done.
Delaying the availability of family planning provision extends the time taken for the population to stabilise and eventually reduce. It is a time-critical issue, as is climate change. Action should be taken now for this to happen – the longer we leave it, the more mouths there will be to feed in the future, and the longer it will take to become sustainable.
The study throws up some startling statistics: a US family who choose to have one less child would provide the same level of emissions reductions as 684 teenagers who choose to comprehensively recycle for the rest of their lives.
Save the Earth – Don’t Give Birth
The optimal carrying capacity of the world is generally accepted to be two to three billion people. All efforts should be made reach this figure as quickly as possible. Population reduction has to be done by creating the social conditions and awareness of our predicament, which requires a full explanation of it being in our collective best interests to have small families. When the general public has the full knowledge of the benefits brought by small families it will soon become the norm, and embraced as a benevolent action and something to be proud of.
The basic principle of being green at home has always been ‘Reduce, Reuse, Recycle’. The three Rs have been put in order of importance, so of it is better to reduce, or not use something in the first place. If you reduce, there is no need to reuse or recycle as you didn’t use it in the first place. This adage was never meant to apply to baby-making, but the best thing you can do is reduce the number of children you have.
A world with too many people is a simple fact that has a simple answer – an aim for all families to be small, with one, two or three children at the most. If this was understood, accepted and adopted, the world would become a far better place in the space of one or two generations. Many women are child-free by choice, knowing they are doing the best thing possible for the planet. The child-free movement is growing rapidly as we wake up to our precarious future. By being child-free you are making a statement and a real sacrifice. The child-free should be applauded, rewarded, congratulated and praised. A growing number of men and women can see the way the world is heading and make an informed choice to have a life without children of their own. An increasing number of people are seeing there are real dangers ahead, so why bring a child into a world with a future as unknown and precarious as the one we are facing?
Most people today with little or no understanding of the challenges the world faces would be astounded to hear that a couple could take such a decision. Awareness levels within society are so low that, for most people, making a decision based on the world’s future would seem incomprehensible and bizarre.
With the world becoming more depleted of resources, the decision not to add another burden on the world is the most selfless act anyone can make. To decide not to have children is to go against natural instincts and the expectations of friends, family and society.
The child-free have to accept that the lifelong bond of becoming a family will never happen. They will never watch their children go to school, grow up and become adults. They will never experience the pride of introducing their children to others or experience the joy of watching them play and discover new things. They won’t experience the pure, innocent love a child can give. It is a brave and emotionally hard choice to make. We all know there are many sacrifices to having children. We do it because it is the most natural, beautiful thing we can do. It is hard-wired in our DNA.
The Japanese, Germans and others are discovering some of the reasons why birth rates are falling. The cost of bringing up a child in the developed world is high, in terms of childcare costs and loss of earnings, putting many off having large families. Also, the traditional assumptions that having a family is something people are just expected to do are being lost. Technology and opportunities to enjoy your life in other ways are overtaking the natural urge to bring up a child.
The Morality of Childbirth
It is our moral responsibility to look after our planet. So is it the right thing to have a large family in a time of rapidly diminishing resources? Is it your human right to have as many children as you like? We have set the stage for the biggest collapse ever seen on the planet, potentially making the two world wars of the 20th century look like a playground fight. Is it right to bring more children into a world with these prospects?
Is it moral to bring another person into the world if you are fully aware of its impact? Deciding whether to have a baby is one of the biggest decisions the average person makes in their lives. Today, this decision is affecting our world in a way it never has done before. We should recognise those who choose not to have children as being benevolent to the world. They have made a sacrifice in a crowded world, so others can have space for their children. Those with children should be eternally grateful to the child-free.
Having children is undoubtedly fulfilling for most people. A family unit fulfils our basic instincts and desires and gives a purpose to your life. However, more and more people are also acknowledging the struggles and regrets that can arise from having children. This is hard to admit, but it is increasingly felt. Corinne Maier is a French psychoanalyst, mother and the author of the bestselling book, No Kids: 40 Good Reasons Not To Be A Mother. The book created a stir on its release in 2008. Maier referred to the wave of people being newly open about regretting parenthood as ‘a movement’. ‘The reality of motherhood,’ she writes, ‘is incontinence, boredom, weight gain, saggy breasts, depression, the end of romance, lack of sleep, dumbing down, career downturn, loss of sex drive, poverty, exhaustion and lack of fulfilment.’
Adoption
Bringing up someone else’s child through adoption is one of the greatest things anyone can do. There are over 130 million orphans in the world looking for a home. Adoption is a far more laudable decision than the alternative route of expensive and unpredictable IVF in a couple’s quest for children. If you can’t have children for whatever reason, or have chosen not to, why not bring up an adopted child as your own, giving him or her your love and the best future you can. You are helping a child escape from a precarious and uncertain position with no loving parents of their own and giving them a bright future. Also, by not having a child yourself, you are not personally adding to the overpopulated world and reducing the impacts of climate breakdown.
In the UK, to adopt a child is difficult and many hoops have to be jumped through, because of risks of the child being adopted by unfit adopters. But the logic here is twisted. Why is it that anyone can give birth without question? Is it right that a homeless, indebted drug addict can have as many children as they like? Is it their human right? Does their ‘right’ trump that of the child? What are the child’s rights? Currently, the state steps in at huge cost and the child is taken away if it is not looked after. But wouldn’t it be better for everyone if the child had not been born in the first place? Simple positive steps could easily be taken to make the system work better for everyone, but governments avoid going anywhere near a subject with controversy like this.
A Question for Your Friends
Many people are unaware of the overpopulation crisis that has been unfolding for such a long time. The challenge is to bring the issue back into the mainstream. We have to bring it into the open, talk about it positively and be optimistic of the benefits a small population will bring.
It is a great subject to bring up in conversation if approached tactfully. Once the subject has been raised, it is surprising how many people share the same thoughts, but were too shy to talk about it for fear of what others might think. As the topic has been neglected for so long, many people do not know exactly where they stand, or what can or can’t be said. After reading this book, the arguments and reasons for lack of conversation have been covered extensively, and all the answers are given to the questions some people may throw at you. As the subject is, unfortunately, still somewhat controversial you really have no idea of a person’s opinion until the subject is broached.
Ask someone the question, ‘What is the single most beneficial thing you can do, in your lifetime, to benefit the environment?’ and the answer will rarely be, ‘Don’t have children’ or ‘have a small family’. The most environmentally aware might answer correctly. Most people will answer, ‘Don’t eat meat’, ‘Don’t fly’, or something similar. Of course, these are beneficial to the environment, and everyone should be aiming to reduce their consumption. Only when they have exhausted all of their guesses, answer with ‘have a small family’. Such is the lack of public awareness of the connection between population and environmentalism that the best answer is rarely given.
If you have children, they might follow the same no flying, no driving, vegan lifestyle as you and have a low impact, but they might not. And they may have children themselves, redoubling the damage ad infinitum. Having no children ends your environmental impact when you die. So even if you’re not the ultimate green and you drive to work and take a flight once a year, your impact will be finite. One less child is an entire lifetime of consumption prevented.
The harsh truth to accept by anyone who has a large family is that they are damaging the environment solely through their numbers. They may be environmentally altruistic in every other way, but their offspring may not be the same. The act of introducing a new human life into the world, with an entire lifetime of consumption that entails in the 21st century, is the most environmentally damaging thing that any one individual can do. To say this to a young couple, planning their life ahead with a family and all the joy that brings, is very tricky, but does that mean we should ignore it? Environmental awareness of the major consequences of procreation is absent from mainstream conversation. It isn’t part of our education, and it isn’t acknowledged or talked about nearly as much as it should be.
Gay for Gaia
With the world on the edge of the precipice, homosexuality is one of the most natural and attractive ways to mitigate overpopulation as you will not biologically reproduce (though of course you may have children through surrogacy or artificial insemination). Given all of the other ways of helping the planet, through enforced reduction of consumption, or the incentives to have smaller families, being gay is the easiest of all the options. Being gay makes you very, very green. You are doing more than anyone to help the environment simply by not adding to the number of humans because of your sexuality.
The Ageing Population: Another Demographic Dividend
The world is ageing rapidly, with ageing populations growing in Japan, Europe and many developed countries. That prospect has generated a number of concerns (from economists, as usual), from labour shortages and wage inflation, to increased taxes and healthcare costs. Economic arguments have been made that birth rates must increase to support and underwrite these costs of old age, but this is short-sighted and simply not the case: in fact, the opposite is true. The ageing population provides many benefits, with most people being active and productive for the majority of their lives right through to old age. The benefits of a smaller population far outweigh any benefits brought by increasing birth rates. As lifestyles and healthcare services improve, populations live longer, healthier lives, which means their productive life is also longer, benefitting society.
There is an argument that says we will need to keep the population high to look after the older generation. It is true that as population levels rise, so does the number of elderly people needing care, but there is no shortage of labour for this purpose: the opposite is the case. As automation and technology have increased, jobs have disappeared by the million, leaving a massive workforce looking for employment. With 40–50 per cent of jobs predicted to disappear by 2050, there will be huge opportunities for the care sector, and for people who decide to care for their own parents in later life.
In a 2003 study: ‘Is the ageing population a threat to health care?’ Professor Raymond Tallis of Manchester University found 80 per cent of men over 85 were living at home, successfully looking after their personal care unaided. Even half the 95-plus age group were still independent. There is concern that fertility rates are below replacement levels in some countries, but this should be encouraged, not seen as something to worry about. Only when population has reduced to the carrying capacity should any effort be put into returning to fertility replacement levels.
Many elderly people are physically fit and active, do voluntary work and provide free childcare through looking after grandchildren, immensely benefitting society at virtually no cost. Young children do none of these things – the opposite is true. They require full-time supervision, usually by paid adults, and so are a burden on the economy. At the other end of the age spectrum, most pensioners are financially secure, and financial help is also given down the generations (not up) on average until age 75. There is a huge raft of expenditure supporting young people – fifteen years or more of full-time education, child benefits, and costs caused by high youth unemployment and crime. Contrary to commonly held views, the old are far more beneficial than the young. With increases in levels of education often to degree level, children are a drag on the economy and of no benefit until they are in their twenties.
Female Empowerment
‘Wherever women are given political control of their bodies, where they have the vote, education, appropriate medical facilities and they can read and have rights and so on, the birth rate falls – there are no exceptions to that.’
David Attenborough
Project Drawdown produced the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming, with 80 ‘no regrets’ solutions – actions that make sense to take regardless of their climate impact since they have intrinsic benefits to communities and economies. The number one solution is a combination of family planning and educating girls. Together, this would reduce CO2 emissions by 120 gigatons by 2050 – more than on- and offshore wind power combined.
These figures confirm what charities such as Population Matters have been saying for decades: no matter how many tech solutions and CO2 reducing initiatives are tried, emissions will keep increasing while human numbers grow. One of the simplest and most effective solutions is a combination of educating girls and the universal provision of access to family planning, which both slow birth rates. A lower birth rate gives families an easier life as resources are shared among fewer people, plus CO2 emissions are dramatically reduced.
Giving women the freedom to decide when, and if, they fall pregnant is the greatest gift that can be given. Having the security of knowing that you can make that decision completely on your own is incredibly empowering. Given this power, women instinctively choose longer intervals between births as they know they don't want to become pregnant again soon after giving birth. Mothers want to give their children the best they can, and this becomes possible when there is a longer space between births. Also, women will choose to have their first child later, at a time of their choosing, as they may not feel ready to become a mother at a young age. These freely made choices benefit everyone, and should be available to every woman. These choices naturally result in smaller, happier families, through freedom of choice and without imposition or coercion.
Feminists the world over have been fighting the cause for empowering women. Feminists should be standing shoulder to shoulder with environmentalists:
Equality leads to empowerment.
Empowerment leads to choosing to have a smaller family.
A smaller family leads to a stable environment.
A stable environment leads to better standards of living.
When living standards drop as a result of famine, war or social unrest, women and children are the first to suffer. Smaller families and empowered, educated women reduce the likelihood of social unrest, resulting in a virtuous circle. The feminist cause should be behind the population reduction message more than ever as it is a crucial step in keeping the environment safe for the future.
Family Planning
Contraception is one of the greatest human achievements. It has allowed us unlimited sex without it resulting in pregnancy, which has liberated women throughout the world.
There are fifteen types of contraception: condoms, combined pill, progesterone pill, implant, injection, hormonal coil, copper coil, diaphragm, cap, female condoms, patch, vaginal ring, female sterilisation, male sterilisation and fertility awareness. Long-acting reversible contraception methods include the implant, the copper coil and the hormonal coil. Implants give the certainty of knowing you won’t fall pregnant for a time period of your choice – from six months to two years.
A young woman with two children from a low-income family struggling to cope with day-to-day life has a weight lifted off her mind with the knowledge that she won’t fall pregnant again for the next twelve months. She will feel relief that she no longer has to worry about having the burden of pregnancy, childbirth and another mouth to feed, together with knowing she can give her full attention to the two children she already has. She and her partner can opt for another twelve-month contraceptive, and have another child when and if she chooses. She has been given something priceless: power over her own reproduction. She can choose and she has been liberated.
Vasectomies are perhaps the greatest form of contraception. If you’re a man of a certain age, or a man who knows for certain you don’t want to father any, or any more, children – have a vasectomy. Writing as a man who has made this decision, I can tell you it is extremely liberating and I’m so glad I had it done. A quick visit to the surgery, a couple of snips and you’re on your way home, knowing that you will never bring another person into the world. It is quite an odd feeling, knowing that you are no longer fertile; there is a sense of loss. But it also frees you for exactly the same reason – you will never cause an unwanted pregnancy! It’s also an amazing gift to women. Safe in the knowledge that you cannot become pregnant by your partner, you never have to take another pill of use any form of contraception.
Another advantage of vasectomies is that they end the need for any ‘product’. There is no longer any cost, by-product or waste from contraception. There are no more chemicals and side effects from pills, no injections and no costly condoms heading to landfill. Vasectomies should, like all forms of contraception, be universally available and free.
Unplanned Pregnancies
A lack of education and access to family planning results in unplanned pregnancies. If worldwide average fertility was reduced to two children per female (compared with 2.37 today), there would be 777 million fewer people to feed by 2050. If all unintended pregnancies resulting in births were avoided, human population size in 2100 would be three billion people less than one assuming no similar reduction in birth rates. This is an enormous figure and would change the world dramatically for the better - for women, for families, and for the planet itself.
Every child should be a wanted child. A wanted child will be a cared for child. It is goal that could easily be reached if enough resources and determination were given to this simple, humane and benevolent cause. An estimated 250 million women have no access to contraception, contributing to the one in four unplanned births worldwide and 50 million abortions each year. Half of these abortions are performed clandestinely, killing 68,000 women in the process.
40 per cent of all pregnancies, a total of 85 million per year, are unintended. This figure is coincidentally almost the same as the annual rise in population, of 80 million. The dangerous increase in human population, the root cause of virtually all our crises, could be stopped at a stroke, by empowering women and giving them the ability to choose using contraception.
Education
Education, plus access to family planning, empowers women. Even if you are empowered and have access to family planning, you still need to know the full facts about the benefits of having a small family. You’ve been given a new car, the keys and a full tank, but unless you know how to drive, it’s not much use.
Cultures vary greatly around the world with different beliefs and ways of living that are often deeply ingrained. Changing whole communities’, and even countries’, ways of living is not easy, but it is an essential part of tackling population growth in the most vulnerable countries. This piece of the puzzle has been ignored by some, such as Hans Rosling, who saw wealth creation as the only prerequisite for stable family sizes. But culture cannot be ignored, especially if, as in Madagascar, the desired family size is more than a dozen. If Rosling’s theory of increased wealth was applied but cultural values didn’t change, all that would result would be families with twelve children and high consumption per person, leading to the worst of both worlds.
Sheryl WuDunn, the Pulitzer Prize-winning co-author of Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, says: ‘When women are educated, they tend to marry later in life, to have children later in life, and to have fewer children. In effect, you have a form of population control that’s peaceful, voluntary, and efficient. Plus, educated women do better in business, raising economic growth rates, and lowering societal conflict. If we could achieve universal literacy for women, we'd have a much better shot at peace around the world.’
The more people talk about the benefits of female empowerment the more it will become socially acceptable and validated. Education from a young age is important too. Once someone understands all of the relationships between a family size and the state of the planet, they will remember the information for the rest of their lives and be able to pass on the message to their own children.
Disempowering Men
Facing facts (and writing as a man), we have to admit that it is predominantly men who have messed things up in the world. We’re not all bad, but given the right circumstances some of us become power-crazed violent thugs who start wars that kill millions. Men are far more aggressive and dangerous than women. In the US, for example, the most likely cause of death of a young man is being shot by another young man. As the climate continues to break down and population increases, so does the chance of war. In the interests of handing some power to women, we can also take some power away from men.
Simple Change
‘What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of the billions who are its victims.’
– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Population is a large piece of the jigsaw, but there are many other pieces to consider that will improve our prospects in a rapidly changing world. Climate breakdown is a symptom of the wider disease of the combined overshoots of overconsumption and overpopulation. We are increasingly recognising climate breakdown and have taken some steps in the right direction, but we are not seriously addressing the fundamental cause. Overpopulation and biodiversity loss have been relegated to the back of the queue. A global change in economics is needed to fundamentally alter the way we think about the world.
We can get by with less. We can be happier with less.
Peace, Stability, Security, Movement of People
Today, more than ever, we must aim for peace, security and stability, all of which are made more difficult to achieve as the number of people increases. In many countries today, political decisions and election results are increasingly influenced by the topic of migration, the root cause of which is overpopulation. The world today would be a very different place if our population was stable. We would be in a calm, peaceful world – but we are not. Across the world today, politics is changing and there is a dangerous undercurrent of anger from many sides, with a rise of the far right, caused ultimately by the large number of people simply wanting to move and have a better life.
There has always been movement of people across continents, but today it is happening more than ever. The scale of people moving can cause resentment among the local population and lead to tensions on both sides. The local population is unhappy at their way of life being disrupted by an influx of people with a different culture and language. In the longer term, local people may also be angered by a loss of jobs as they are undercut on wages by the incomers willing to work for less money. From the perspective of the people arriving, they mean no harm and are simply looking for a better way of life.
If we really wanted to change our ways for the better, we could easily do so. For example, look at the amount of money spent annually on the US defence budget – just under $700 billion for 2018, a ludicrously high amount, more than the entire GDP of Saudi Arabia. £700 billion is 200 times the amount given by the benevolent billionaire Bill Gates through the Gates Foundation. Just imagine what that money could do if it was spent on something good, just for one year. Then imagine what could be done if it was spent every year. Would the reputation of the US change if it spent all of that money on aid and solving the climate crisis?
The World Economic Forum (World Economic Forum, 2016) reports regularly on world events resulting from climate breakdown that threaten world stability. These problems could be solved, and the US defence budget by itself could bring stability to the world. That money could supply healthcare and family planning to everyone on the planet, solving the overpopulation crisis at a stroke. The schemes possible with this amount of money would be astounding: forests across the globe could be replanted, plastics could be recovered from the oceans, species saved from extinction, and technology could be deployed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. This could happen through a simple change in policy and mind-set in the United States. It could be done. But the realistic chances that this could happen are close to zero, so deeply ingrained in the collective American psyche is that ‘guns are good’.
Debt Forgiveness
The developing world is burdened with unrepayable debt, which keeps countries in poverty and results in incomes being so low that simple family planning is unaffordable. This creates a negative cycle where large families keep families in poverty. Debt forgiveness would enable these countries to rebuild their economies and allow contraception to be affordable and available. Education levels would rise, leading to further reductions in pregnancy rates, allowing women to be more productive, rather than being tied to managing large families. This would ultimately benefit everyone.
Steady State Economy - Bioeconomics
‘All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life’
‘Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty’
Albert Einstein
Our current economic system is predicated on growth – ‘Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell’, as US environmental author Edward Abbey said. Capitalism, in its current form, has run its course. Before we became super-consumers and were working safely within the boundaries of the Earth’s resources, capitalism was fine. But today we have gone too far and we have to stop before the planet stops us. Capitalism has served its purpose and it is time for a change. A steady state economy is needed, requiring the existing system to be fundamentally changed – no easy task with something so ingrained, but a way must be found to keep the economists and the planet itself happy. Rather than sit back and wait for the inevitable economic crash, a controlled and measured economic slowdown should be engineered to keep living standards and personal wealth at a sustainable level, while simultaneously slowing resource use. Redistribution of wealth can be implemented, where those in wealthy nations would, on average, have to adjust their consumption levels downwards – achieved through a radical political transformation where we are incentivised to do so. We don’t need to consume as we currently do to have a great life.
There should be more awareness of personal consumption levels; we should not be spending and consuming as unnecessarily as we are. Shopping for pleasure should be discouraged. We should be proud of how little we consume, not how much. Until relatively recently, holidays were only taken by the very rich. Everyone else had to work hard just to make ends meet. Today, holidays are the norm, even if only for a few weeks per year. So the cash-rich and time-poor population spends huge amounts of money on extravagant trips to distant destinations. This may happen several times a year. Wouldn’t it be better to have longer, more relaxed, holidays rather than mad rushes to overcrowded airports for mini-breaks?
We have to live within our means and transition to a steady state economy. In the words of Professor Tim Jackson’s 2009 book, we can have Prosperity Without Growth. We would be far more prosperous without growth, aiming for collaboration, not competition. The economy should take into account the true value and benefits of nature, or Bioeconomics as Tony Juniper and others call it. The best way to prosper is to live in a stable and steady state providing plenty for everyone.
A stable economy can exist without relying on perpetual growth. There are many simple answers waiting to be implemented now: development aid could be used for solar cooking to save burning wood, for example. Countries could follow Costa Rica’s example by giving up its military spending and using the money saved for positive purposes.
Returning to population: and the same style of incentives used to change to renewable energy could be applied to reducing fertility levels. Answers are being sought, with industries and technologies actively investing in ways to reduce energy use, energy sources moving rapidly away from carbon, and recycling rates increasing. Population growth is so far being left out of the equation. Including population growth into the equation by financially promoting small families is a key way to achieve a steady state economy. The smaller families would be happier and better off economically as well.
Universal Basic Income
The idea of a Universal Basic Income is a great one. We have a National Healthcare Service (in the UK at least) providing free healthcare when needed. We also have free education for every child up to the age of sixteen. With job security being lost to automation, there simply won’t be enough full-time jobs to go round. So why not extend the national provision to giving every citizen the security of a basic income too? People would know they wouldn’t go hungry and could get by without being pressured to find employment where there may be none available.
Today, workforces around the world are treated as nothing more than a commodity to be bought and sold like any other product. This has taken away human dignity for many. A 9 to 5 job is a recent phenomenon of the Industrial Age, introduced in Britain for factory workers. Historically, in times of plenty, you would hunt and gather; when you were satisfied and content, you had leisure time. Why do we force a strict regime of 9 to 5 with a few weeks’ leave per year?
A basic income would just cover essentials, and there would still be an incentive to work for household goods, holidays and other luxuries. But we have to ask ourselves, is work so important? Surely time is more valuable. Why spend your life slaving away in an office or a factory rather than having time for more productive, artistic or educational purposes? In an age of automation, it is pointless creating ‘non-jobs’ – meaningless, worthless jobs created just to create a job when one needn’t exist. A universal basic income would give better life chances for everyone and society would become happier, less stressed and more equitable.
Don’t Work so Hard, Live Your Life
Efficiencies made by utilising the ‘internet of things’ will lead to incredible possibilities and advances. Smartphones have appeared and given us instant access to every single piece of information – a phenomenal achievement, unimaginable only a few decades ago. This technology can educate the world, and education improves lives and helps reduce birth rates. Progress in energy technology has made wind and solar power competitive in price and will soon make fossil fuels a thing of the past. Electric cars will be driving themselves, creating the biggest change in transport since the car replaced the horse and cart. We will look back at the time when we allowed people to get behind the wheel of a two-ton metal box and drive on a public road, when millions of people died every year through traffic accidents. The transport of the future will be clean, fast and efficient, unlike the dirty chaos of today.
Advances in technology also bring dangers of over-reliance. As we advance technologically, we take away our ability to survive in the natural world. We should be able to do both and there are dangers if we can’t, especially regarding electricity. Power can be cut off instantly, leaving every electronic device dead. In today’s connected world, this would be catastrophic on a large scale, with communication, transactions, lighting and power cut off in an instant. We should, as far as possible, get back to a partial reliance on localism. Towns should be able to get by on what they can produce themselves, even if it is at a basic level. Not doing this leaves communities vulnerable to events outside their control.
Economists predict massive job losses will continue as automation, artificial intelligence, robotics, and other technologies continue to take over. Accountants, doctors, lawyers, teachers, bureaucrats, and financial analysts may all become redundant. One Oxford University (Frey, 2013) study suggests that 47 per cent of US jobs could be lost before the year 2040.
Global capitalism does not need half of the world’s population. Jobs are becoming scarcer as automation makes millions redundant. The world’s largest ever generation of young people are increasingly dissatisfied with their lives as a lack of productive careers stifles their ambition and breeds resentment of the older generations. Countries such as Spain have youth unemployment at 50 per cent. This is one of the main contributors to movement of people, but there are fewer places to go, with fewer opportunities, as space becomes scarcer.
In 1930, the renowned British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that within a century, economic growth would mean there would be a typical working week of fifteen hours, and people’s main dilemma would be what to do with all that free time. He did not foresee the massive continued growth in population that would need immense efforts to build cities and increase land use. He also didn’t realise the strength of marketing, advertising and the greed of people and corporations that always want more of everything.
The invention of washing machines, vacuum cleaners and other gadgets brought huge time savings to households across the world. But they also resulted in social pressure for everyone to wear cleaner clothes and have cleaner houses. Time was simply diverted to other tasks. The same has happened with computers and automation – we are all still expected socially to work hard.
The Western approach of hard work and the 9 to 5 job is embedded in our culture, which we have imposed across the globe as a symbol of success. This is indoctrination to keep up the pretence that all labour is needed. In fact, many jobs are tedious and unnecessary, just there to exploit a market and make a profit. But work is ingrained, encouraged and expected. For many people, their ‘jobs’ are nothing more than something that has to be done to make ends meet, to pay the bills and feel secure, with little satisfaction or purpose gained.
The Western work ethic says you should work hard every day. If you don’t, you are frowned upon and seen as a burden to society. There is a culture of being permanently busy and working hard to impress others. But why do we need to work so long and so hard? Surely, in the 21st century, we are advanced enough as a civilisation to reduce our work and increase our leisure? Building more just adds more to our overconsumption and the destruction of the planet. Those who sit around and read a book or play some music are far friendlier to the planet than those who fly away on holiday or buy a new car.
Non-westernised cultures do not have this work ethic, as throughout the millennia it hasn’t been needed – why struggle if you don’t have to? Our mind-set needs to change and it will have to. In the past, if you wanted some fruit, you’d just pick it from the tree. We shouldn’t be afraid and see it as a disaster when jobs are lost. We should embrace it and enjoy our new-found freedoms. While populations are still high and growing it won’t be easy, as mouths will need feeding and the infrastructure needs building and maintaining. The sooner population stabilises, the sooner life will be easier for everyone.
We should aim for a roof over everyone’s head at minimal cost and adequate sustenance for all. Everything after that is a luxury, so do we really need it? We like to work; it gives us a sense of achievement and we should do it for our self-esteem and personal well-being. But you can go too far. Why is it always ‘hard’ work? Why do we impose these stressful burdens on ourselves? With automation and mechanisation we should be heading in the opposite direction. How about ‘easy’ work?
Maximum salaries should also be introduced. Anyone earning over five times the national average really should think of the morality of their salary. Are they really that much better than the other employees earning ten or twenty times less than they do? Do these high earners seriously believe they are worth that much? It comes down to human nature again; if you see someone else with a similar salary then it must be okay. A voluntarily agreed company maximum, or multiple wage ratio limits, should be set by companies. The lower the maximum, the prouder a company and its workforce would be. It would be a badge of honour for a company that values its workforce. All CEOs should spend two weeks per year working in the distribution centre or checkout area and receive the same pay.
Human labour is currently being used incredibly inefficiently. The world is full of jobs and activities that shouldn’t exist. We are trapped by debt and we have made up jobs to suit our extravagant lifestyles. There are too many of what professor of anthropology David Graeber calls ‘bullshit jobs’ (Graeber, 2016) :
‘In the year 1930, John Maynard Keynes predicted that, by century’s end, technology would have advanced sufficiently that countries like Great Britain or the United States would have achieved a 15-hour work week. There’s every reason to believe he was right. In technological terms, we are quite capable of this. And yet it didn’t happen. Instead, technology has been marshalled, if anything, to figure out ways to make us all work more. In order to achieve this, jobs have had to be created that are, effectively, pointless. Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed. The moral and spiritual damage that comes from this situation is profound. It is a scar across our collective soul. Yet virtually no one talks about it.’
Millions of watch and take part in sport. Vast amounts of time and money are spent and wasted on sport. Football, in particular, is a prime example where young players are treated as god-like heroes and worshipped by millions. They are paid vast amounts of money to kick a ball around a field. The 100 highest-paid footballers of 2016 were paid cumulative earnings of over $3 billion, according to Forbes (Forbes Corporate Communications, 2017). Incredible achievements from the sportspeople, but could they be encouraged to donate half of their money to good causes?
Great things could, and should, be achieved with our spare capacity. The Western world has more spare capacity than we know what to do with, so we make things up in ways unimaginable 100 years ago. We are wasting our last few decades of stability on trivial pursuits. We could have sponsorship where thousands of people set aside a day to plant tens of thousands of trees. These events would have a direct positive effect on the environment – millions of trees could be planted this way, at a tiny cost, to the benefit of everyone.
As population reduces, there won’t be the need for so many of today’s jobs. As the need for new housing declines, so will the need for builders, planners and architects. This is a benefit, not a crisis, as more people are freed to live lives of their own choosing.
100 years ago, the majority of the population worked in agriculture. In developed countries today, it is below 5 per cent. If we switched overnight from then to now, most of the population would be without work. If that huge number of people were put to use in employment specifically ‘for the benefit of the world’, imagine what could be achieved. Instead we have salespeople and parking attendants. This is a tragic waste of human capacity. Immense projects could be achieved that would benefit future generations and fulfil those involved in their creation.
Policy and Law
There are laws and policies designed to protect the environment and limit pollution. There are no laws, and very few policies, to limit the number of consumers. If logic were applied, lowering the number of children per family would be a priority. The needs of people should be taken into account, so a way should be found to encourage smaller families for the common good without hurting the public’s rights and feelings. Policies should be introduced to slow and eventually reverse the size of the global population, within a framework of human rights, creating a means to reduce humanity’s impact and protect biodiversity.
Currently we have laws concerning the consumption side of the equation, but none for the number of consumers’ side. All policies and laws regarding families should make having a family a thing of real responsibility, something to be proud of and a decision made only when the parents know they have everything they need, financially and emotionally, to bring a child into the world.
There are many simple measures that could be introduced. All foreign aid should be given in tandem with the implementation of sustainable population policies. Family planning and education should be part of foreign aid, with long-term facilities implemented until countries are able to provide their own freely available reproductive services. Cash incentives for child-bearing, as practised by some countries with sub-replacement fertility, should be stopped. Singapore, with a fertility rate of 1.3, encourages births and pays over $7,400 for every child born (Reuters staff, 2017).
Child benefit in the UK rewards families for giving birth with money given to parents of all children under the age of 16. Every first child in the UK is eligible for over £1,000 per year, with a smaller sum for each additional child. From its beginnings in 1798 until the Beveridge Report of 1942, there has been continuous provision of financial aid to families.
The money was designed to address poverty and ‘advance the potential effect on nutrition, as a means of encouraging families to keep children in education’. In the 21st century the well-meaning origins are outdated, as malnutrition has been replaced by childhood obesity, with a third of all UK children now classed as overweight. The price of food has fallen to an all-time low and we are feeding our children too much, rather than too little, as in World War II when the report was written. There would be an outcry if any of these benefits were removed, but is this fair?
A simple way of discouraging large family sizes in the UK would be to double the amount given for the first child, giving the family the security of knowing their child will be provided for, continue with a set amount for the second child, but not give further benefits for further children. This would encourage smaller families. Any parents wanting large families are free to have them, but at the parents’, not the state’s, expense.
The Happiness Index
Economic growth is incompatible with planetary limits. Economic growth is leading to an unhappy planet, so economic growth is not positive. We should therefore be aiming for environmental growth and economic contraction. How do you measure happiness? The best measure devised so far is the Happiness Index. This measure was proposed by then UK Prime Minister David Cameron at the beginning of his term in 2010. A better name for the Happiness Index is needed, plus a Happiness Index for the Environment too, to move away from the anthropocentric side, though a Happy Environment Index would naturally lead to a happy populace. Combine the two, and a happy environment leads to a happy person.
Good jobs with low levels of economic inequality are needed. Everyone should be able to find secure, stable employment that pays at least enough to provide a decent standard of living. Low levels of economic inequality lead to a feeling of social fairness, resulting in less crime and a more benevolent society. Guaranteed health, education and other public service provision is a prerequisite for all other social and economic goals. Our prosperity and that of future generations depends on a healthy environment. These goals lead to life satisfaction, happiness and well-being: improving people’s lives should be the ultimate aim of public policy above basic economics.
Once we overcome the superficial greed of consumerism we might realise that true happiness cannot be bought.
World Charter for Nature
The rights of the planet should take priority over human rights because those human rights depend on the planet.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, The United Nations World Charter for Nature has been out of sight since 1982. It should be brought into force. If just two of the clauses were enforced, action could be taken to stop countless acts of environmental damage:
‘The genetic viability on the earth shall not be compromised; the population levels of all life forms, wild and domesticated, must be at least sufficient for their survival, and to this end necessary habitats shall be safeguarded.’
On an individual level, everyone has the right to act and protect the environment, with the full backing of the UN, given that:
‘Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.’
If the Charter had been followed, human population would not have been allowed to rise as it has, and the rights of nature would have been upheld. With our current system, the natural world has no representative. The natural world is relegated and crushed in the tsunami of money and capitalism. Without any representative to legally enforce the Charter, nature has been shuffled off to a backroom and the Charter sits quietly in a cupboard gathering dust while we carry on regardless.
One valiant attempt to keep the Charter alive comes from marine wildlife saviours the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which acts according to it. Whenever challenged against actions taken to protect whales, the Sea Shepherd simply states the Charter – and wins. Other organisations should take the same line.
‘If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.’
Garrett Hardin
Rights of nature and the environment should be revalued to equal, or surpass, those of humans, as we cannot survive without nature. Ecosystems must be valued; an ‘eco-democracy’ could be created. Forests are cut down and ecosystems destroyed because they are not given a monetary value in their living form. It is a failure that governments and economists have not given nature a value; profit is all that matters. The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature is a growing network of organizations and individuals committed to the universal adoption and implementation of legal systems that recognize, respect and enforce “Rights of Nature”. The Alliance holds ethics tribunals which ‘provide systemic Rights of Nature based alternatives to the false solutions and failed negotiations of governing Nation States’. Bodies such as the UN should be following the Alliance’s lead and protecting all remaining forested areas as a top priority as they are crucial in the fight against climate breakdown.
In an attempt to recognise this truth, the UN created the Harmony with Nature program (United Nations, n.d.), an initiative that aims to build momentum for an ecocentric worldview, including ‘Nature’s Rights’. The UN also initiated International Mother Earth Day, which is celebrated every year, but is more of a token gesture than any true resolution to protect nature and the natural world.
There are some positive signs that nature is being recognised for the true value it has. The Chinese Great Green Wall has been battling the encroachment of the Gobi Desert for years, with 66 billion trees planted in the past few decades. The second Great Green Wall is the 7,700-kilometre wall of trees running through 11 countries along the southern frontier of the Sahara Desert. The walls aim to restore 50 million hectares of land, provide food security for 20 million people, create 350,000 jobs, and sequester 250 million tons of carbon.
Everlasting Charities
Can you imagine a time when Save the Children, Oxfam and the WWF cease to exist?
Or are they a permanent fixture in a world that we know we cannot fix?
Accepting these charities as a permanent fixture means you accept that the issues they deal with will always be there. It is another example of an ingrained culture. While human population increases, these charities are fighting causes they know they can never win. If they accepted overpopulation and proactively acted on the knowledge of how everyone would benefit from smaller family sizes they would make a real change. Yet only a fraction of these charities ever mentions human overpopulation.
All wildlife charities exist because of the human pressure put on the wildlife – a cynic would say they don’t mention overpopulation as it keeps them in business. If human population and encroachment was reduced, so would the pressure put on the wildlife, and the environment would recover naturally.
Inspirational Charities – Effective Altruism
There are thousands of people and charities brave enough to take action on population. Population Matters is the main UK charity trying to get the population message across, with incredible patrons including Sir David Attenborough, Jane Goodall, Paul Ehrlich and Chris Packham. In the US, the Population Reference Bureau has similar aims.
A growing number of charities and organisations are working with marginalised and vulnerable communities to address their basic needs and conserve the ecosystems upon which their livelihoods depend. They can see the crucial role of including family planning as a key part of their work and integrate it with their other endeavours, with inspirational and beneficial results. Unlike the WWF and others, they don’t spend millions on their headquarters and executive salaries, and aren’t constrained by bureaucracy. The disparate groups should come together under an umbrella where a louder, unified voice will be heard.
When you are looking to give to a charity, it is human nature to respond to the plight of the polar bear or the starving child. But if you really want to get to the heart of the matter and help all charities in one go, including children, animals, oceans, trees and wildlife, then support a charity that includes family planning as a core function.
Effective Altrusim is a way of using reason and evidence to do the most good. This is a great idea as it helps you to choose the best way of supporting a cause. Unfortunately the logic is often twisted. True, using effective altruism you will choose the charity which does the best for the lives of people or wildlife, but if you save 1,000 lives, you are effectively adding to the problem rather than helping it. Any charity or cause that helps with lives should also help with the sustainability of the cause, as with the charities below.
Blue Ventures
Blue Ventures supports tropical coastal communities to manage their fisheries and marine resources sustainably. The charity started working in Madagascar, today it also works directly / through partners in the Comoros, Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Indonesia, Timor-Leste and Belize. Blue Ventures were described by Sir David Attenborough as ‘a model for everyone working to conserve the natural life-support systems of our troubled planet’.
Beginning with marine conservation as its main focus, it soon became apparent that unless unmet community health and family planning needs were addressed, the ability of men and women to engage in fisheries management would remain limited. Blue Ventures took the holistic approach of giving access to reproductive health services together with full education for children and adults alongside their fisheries management initiatives.
Their holistic way of working is referred to as ‘Population-Health-Environment’ because of the way that such an integrated portfolio of programs reflects the relationships between people, their health and the environment. When you look at the transformation taking place in these communities, the happiness of the people who can see the results in front of them, you ask yourself, why isn’t this happening everywhere?
The communities are reaping the benefits - they are experiencing better health, are more able to provide for their children, and are managing their marine resources for generations to come. If ever there was an organisation whose approach should be copied and rolled out across the world, Blue Ventures has the perfect template to use.
CHASE Africa and Dandelion Africa
CHASE Africa’s name explains what they do – ‘Community Health and Sustainable Environment’ and comes from the understanding that a healthy community depends on a sustainable environment.
Founder of Dandelion Africa, Wendo Aszed, grew up in the rural communities of the Rift Valley in Kenya and was lucky enough to experience the benefits an education can bring. She grew up with the male domination and the FGM that girls experienced, which is seen as something to aspire to as part of becoming a woman. She saw how little education the communities have, without any knowledge of family planning and the desire of girls to have as many children as they can. The women see being beaten by their husbands as a good thing; a sign that their husbands still want them. She decided to make a change, founding Dandelion Africa at the age of 30 and helping thousands of women gain access to contraception that they didn’t even know existed before.
Enabling women to choose the number and spacing of their children and helping communities to create a robust environment gives people a chance to leave poverty behind. CHASE delivers integrated healthcare and family planning services, especially to marginalised communities in rural areas. They provide environmental education, plant trees in schools and national parks, and integrate healthcare and family planning with environmentally sustainable projects.
By bringing population, health and the environment together they create better conservation and human welfare outcomes than single-sector approaches. When a poor family in a marginalised community is healthy, and can decide on the spacing and number of the children they want, the environment is robust and sustainable. They have more time available for growing food and earning income, their efforts are better rewarded, and they leave poverty more quickly.
This is achieved by giving women in poor communities a chance to use family planning, provided through mobile clinics. Family planning, although crucial, is only part of the story. The communities are educated about sustainability through programs for agriculture – trees are planted by schools in communities where the mobile clinics operate, and forests are restored in National Parks.
Peak Human
How and when will human numbers finally peak? Had we listened to Paul Ehrlich and taken action back in the late 1960s and 70s, population would already have peaked and the world wouldn’t be in the mess it is in today.
Given that a sustainable population at medium levels of consumption is below three billion, the sooner we reach ‘peak human’ the better. The circumstances of the peak’s arrival and of an eventual population reduction, which will inevitably happen, are in our own hands. With increasing per capita consumption, together with population increase, we are in overshoot in many areas, so we should be proactively lowering fertility rates as fast as possible across the globe.
A small variation in the average number of births per woman makes an immense difference in long-term population size. An increase of 0.5 in the average number of births per woman from today’s rate would see world population increasing to over 16 billion people. But a decrease by 0.5 births would see a population peak of 8.4 billion by 2050, decreasing to today’s levels by 2100. Given that we are already in overshoot of resources that the planet can provide, we should be making all efforts possible to head for the lower figure.
Overpopulation and overconsumption are the greatest threats civilisation has ever faced, and the coming fifty to a hundred years will be like no other. Our species, and the ones we manage to save along with ourselves, will come out the other side happier and in sync with nature, despite living in a ravaged and recovering landscape, and will see the currently unfolding century for the incredible transformation that it was.
‘All for One and One for All’ has never had such significance in terms of one planet for all, one child for all, all standing together against a common threat. If today’s generation chose to have just one child, total world population by 2100 would decline to below 3.5 billion – cutting our consumption in half. Along with transitioning to a smart steady-state economy that supports prosperity but cuts waste, population decline can help humanity return to genuinely sustainable numbers, and ultimately return to a stable replacement rate with a two-child average.
At times of great danger we have to work together for a common cause. Differences must be put to one side to overcome a greater threat. We are all aboard the same ship and there are no lifeboats.
Projections
We are climbing up a very steep mountain. When we reach the top is up to us; the height of the peak is also up to us. Currently the mountain is approaching eight billion humans high, and still growing.
Changing the path of the projections for growth is a long-term project because of demographic momentum and the length of human lifespans. Population reduction is a long-term goal that will take several generations to achieve, but the sooner birth rates begin to fall, the sooner the benefits will be felt. It is in our own interest to head as fast as we practically can towards a lower population. Peak human may not be too far off, but we cannot be sure. Can we stabilise the population by 2060? How about 2040?
The projections don’t know where we will end up, and vary by billions. In the United Nations population projections, the ‘medium variant’ assumes incremental decreases in global child-bearing to the year 2100, from today’s global average total fertility rate of 2.2 children per woman to 1.99 by 2100. If these assumptions prove accurate, 3.7 billion additional people are expected in global population, with a still-growing 11.2 billion. The UN Population Division 2017 key findings predict a population of 9.8 billion (95 per cent certainty range: 9.4–10.2 billion) by 2050 and 10.9 billion (range at 9.6 to 13.2 billion) by 2100.
These findings assume two things: first that there will be no unforeseen natural or manmade catastrophic event that will reduce population; second, that no worldwide action is taken to purposefully reduce birth rates. If the current total fertility rate was reduced by half a child per woman today, we could reach the lowest maximum predicted population, of 8.6 billion, before 2050. This would be possible if governments and organisations around the world acted today. It would be a magnificent achievement, the greatest gift from today for the future generations. It hasn’t a hope of being achieved with the current laissez-faire consensus. But it could be done.
Delaying the availability of family planning provision extends the time taken for the population to stabilise and eventually reduce. It is a time-critical issue, as is climate change. Action should be taken now for this to happen – the longer we leave it, the more mouths there will be to feed in the future, and the longer it will take to become sustainable.
Fig 13. Comparison of two-child and one-child families to 2200 with UN medium population projection to 2100. (Rimmer & Ferguson, 2017)
The circumstances of the peak population date will be of our own making. Predictions of population are unreliable, but we can influence the future. We can change the numbers directly through our own actions. Unlike climate breakdown, we can address our numbers easily and directly; we can count the number of humans.
The sooner we reach peak human, the sooner we will reach peak consumption. Figures have been set to attempt to limit the temperate increase to 2°C. Greenhouse gases, once in the atmosphere, are there for thousands of years. If CO2 level rises aren’t stopped, global geoengineering at astronomical cost may be employed to reduce it. It is untried, untested technology and a huge gamble. For human numbers, it is simple. We can provide family planning, humanely, effectively and inexpensively, for the benefit of everyone. It could be accomplished by one billionaire, and the Gates Foundation is trying its best.
A target should be set, as with global temperatures, for reaching ‘peak human’. We have targets for climate change to keep temperatures from rising above 2°C from pre-industrial levels, so why not have targets for maximum populations? It could be set as a date by which we aim to reach a peak, or by a number, or both. It has to be seen as an aim, something for the common good, for the community, for wildlife and for future generations.
As with climate breakdown and CO2 emission targets, countries would aim for below replacement fertility rates. Countries that have already achieved below replacement levels could partner with countries that are above their targets. Arrangements could be made for co-operation with assistance in family planning provision, and countries with low TRFs could accept people and workers to balance their own country’s drop in population. 104 countries have fertility greater than the replacement level of 2.1 – we should aim for all countries to reduce to this level.
A View from the Peak
Reaching ‘peak human’ can’t come soon enough. It will be the first time in all history that human population has not increased. Reaching the plateau moment when we know population will begin to decline will be the greatest of all our achievements. Once this moment has been reached, life for everyone, and everything, will become easier. The sooner we reach the peak, the sooner we can see the improvements a reducing population will bring.
There needs to be universal realisation that our numbers cannot be supported without catastrophic environmental side effects. There must be awareness that we have to stabilise and reduce our numbers as quickly and humanely as possible to give the world a fighting chance to save what is left of nature and make it to the 22nd century as unscathed as possible.
Peak human would also coincide with the environmental minimum: the day Mother Earth is at its lowest ebb, but also the starting point of environmental recovery. The day that all of the hard-working environmental charities will begin to see the unstoppable tide of human destruction finally begin to recede and their work will become easier and more rewarding. That day will see the number of critically endangered species decrease for the first time.
The day we reach Peak Human will be the greatest day and turning point in history for the future of both humans and the planet.
Power of the People
Population and environmental activists of the world have a true vision of a better future. We have to keep our eyes on the future and the great achievements possible with a revived natural world. The sooner we get on with addressing our basic problems, the sooner we can make the world a great place. It could be a place of natural peace and harmony working alongside technology and invention – an advanced, balanced and sustainable world.
”Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment.”
David Attenborough, Life of Mammals, 2002
We have all the answers: they are simple and achievable. We need an attitude of optimism, determination and positivity. We need the right mind-set to achieve them: a socio-political setting to enable lower birth-rate policies and an implementation of global-scale education and family planning.
We must come together as people of the same planet, to save our natural world companions. The people in charge: politicians, business leaders, corporations, charities and religious leaders, all need to work together and realise the benefits of acting and the dangers of not. We need to look at how the world would be so much better and consciously make the changes required in order to achieve that world. We have to talk about how amazing the future will be when we allow nature to return to its former rightful place and enjoy watching the number of species increase and be part of helping that re-naturalisation.
Things will only change when enough people become aware and don’t hide from the truth. We should not be silent when we have more reason to speak up than ever before. Our collective mind-set needs to change: In the 1970s, when population was openly talked about on TV shows and in the media, there was no climate breakdown or realisation of the Sixth Extinction, but people could still see reasons not to have large families. Now that real existential crises are unfolding, we should be talking more; we have to wake up from our daydream and recognise the reality of the dire situation we’re in. The world has never been in the situation that it is currently in. This isn’t a once-in-a-lifetime event - it’s a once-in-a-geological-epoch event. Population growth can be slowed through collective action. The power to achieve sustainable population levels is in our hands.
A Brave New World
Every single one of the world’s problems would be improved by a smaller world population. Once we reach the turning point of returning the world to its rightful owners, the world will be an immeasurably better place. We will have pressed the pause button and then have the chance to press rewind. All of the nightmares of climate breakdown, war, famine and disease will begin to disappear.
We have to fight against our own desires for large families and for material wealth. The fight is against ourselves and our own ‘wealth’, making it a perverse and counter-intuitive fight. But if there is anything worth us all fighting for, it’s for a world in balance with nature.
There are many beneficial effects that lowering the population will produce. Technology remains in place, with all its advantages, but the destruction and pollution of industrialisation all vanish. Every one of the impacts outlined in the previous chapters go into reverse. The result is a world of peace, plenty and serenity for all to enjoy.
As our numbers decrease, the natural equilibrium of the planet would recover. Life would become infinitely better; everyone could live safe, happy lives, with no worries about food, money or shelter. If a serious effort was put into lowering the birth rates globally, it could be achieved in a few decades, with the world seeing true benefits within a few years. The effects would gradually accelerate, with each year bringing more benefits than the previous year.
As more space becomes available, average wealth increases. In the dreamland of an uncrowded planet, idylls long lost to overcrowding will return. Housing will be cheap as supply outstrips demand. Falling house prices will make investors cry out, but in reality are a good thing and are a small price to pay: they are a win for everyone as salaries can be spent on having a life, rather than on having a mortgage for life. Unwanted housing will be abandoned to return to nature and be left as empty shelters for bats, birds and spiders.
Enhanced Nature
By becoming biocentric in our outlook we can change the world for the better. One positive impact of increased CO2 emissions is ‘re-greening’, as plants have increased growth with more CO2 in the atmosphere. This in turn also helps to slow the level of emission rise, fitting in perfectly with James Lovelock’s Gaia theory of the Earth functioning as a self-regulating organism.
As populations decrease, so will the use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers, monocultures and GM crops. The unnatural processes involved disappear, allowing natural states to return, enhancing the soil, water availability and environment. Modern technologies and techniques can be used in innovative ways to make use of the power of nature to do all the things we’ve relied on fertiliser to do. By eliminating the industrial use of fertilisers, crops can be produced using the same natural composts provided free of charge by nature. Soil quality can improve, resulting in higher and higher yields year on year as organic materials return to depleted soils. Bringing nature back into the fold of agriculture can also eliminate the need for pesticides, by encouraging the natural predators of the pests themselves. This can all be done in a modern, managed way, while allowing nature to work its magic. Technology can still be used to maximise crop yields, but can be done in harmony with nature.
We can reforest the world, bringing immense benefits. Number one is the natural carbon sink of forests, with woodland being the greatest, easiest and most natural way for the Earth to recover from the near-fatal wound we have inflicted. Just walking in a wood is good for you, relieving stress and sheltering you from the Sun and wind. Wildlife returns with abundance, with trees providing habitats for hundreds of species of insects and providing food for birds and animals of all shapes and sizes.
Trees should be planted everywhere as fast as possible. One mature oak tree can produce 10,000 new oaks in a year. In the UK, there are one hundred million oak trees. There would be one billion if everyone in the UK planted twenty acorns. Trees don’t even need to be planted individually by hand – forests can be grown by simple spreading of mixed tree seed. This can be done mechanically in the same way as a farmer sows his crops of wheat: nature does the rest.
We have the technology to turn deserts into green oases. Solar irrigation can create forests, cropland and jungles from desert. Once installed, free power from the Sun can be used to purify salt water and then pump it onto land. Given that the useable land is a valuable, limited resource, this process could add millions of acres of useable land to the planet. There would be land for wildlife and crops where none existed before. The ideal venue for this to begin is the Middle East’s deserts, owned by people made immensely rich through fossil fuels. Using their wealth for the good of the planet would be a supreme gesture.
Large-scale solar desalination plants could create rivers of pure water that would then be pumped into a network of ever-smaller tributaries, the reverse of natural rivers. The network could gradually build over time, creating arable farmland and forest. Once the land is greened, the amount of water needed per acre would decrease as natural shade increases together with soil quality, reducing water loss through evaporation.
Realising Utopia
The world would be dramatically improved if just one generation had on average one child. It is a small sacrifice compared to the consequences of inaction. When we finally emerge on the other side of the population and consumption mountain that we have been relentlessly climbing life will become utopian. We will look back with disbelief at what we did and how close we came to the point of no return.
The biocentric human world works in harmony with the natural world. Everyone has the space and resources they need. All energy comes from the Sun. There is no pollution. All waste is recycled. Cars drive themselves quietly around open, congestion-free roads. There is no war or conflict as there is nothing to fight for, or against. The climate is no longer changing, as maximum human effort is put into the greatest global transitional reforesting program ever seen. Forests are re-growing even faster than they were chopped down. Immense solar water-pumping stations purify and pump fresh water to the deserts, turning them into virgin paradises, speeding the re-absorption of CO2. Atmospheric CO2 levels have stabilised and are set to reverse.
All environmental charity work is redundant as animals begin to thrive and multiply in their natural environments. The millions once employed by charities instead now help to expand and naturalise the animal environments that were once so close to disappearing forever. The endangered species list is decreasing every year and will soon disappear to the history books as the Sixth Extinction comes to an end. The news reports of wild animal populations that once showed numbers dwindling to dangerously low levels now report booming populations not seen since the 19th century, with massive herds of elephants and tigers by the thousand roaming the wild jungles of India.
Food is cheap and plentiful, with all crops organic, many grown by hand close to home as people have time on their hands and enjoy working with nature. No child ever goes hungry. All children are wanted, loved, and cared for. Property is so cheap everyone has a house, and the millions slowly being left to be reclaimed by nature are now playgrounds for wildlife.
The Grand Metamorphosis
The last few centuries have seen more changes than ever witnessed before in human history, and we are set to continue the revolution. A phone in the palm of your hand today gives everyone unprecedented access to every piece of information on the planet - science fiction has turned into fact in only a few years. This one change has transformed the world and the changes are set to continue.
In the 1920s, H.G. Wells wrote that:
‘Human life, the tune, the quality, the elements, are changing visibly before our eyes. Human life, as a matter of fact and not a matter of sentiment, is different from what it has ever been before, and it is rapidly becoming more different. Perhaps never in the whole history of life before the present time, has there been a living species subjected to so fiercely urgent, many-sided and comprehensive a process of change as ours to-day.’
The planet is in the middle of a grand metamorphosis. Viewed from space, the planet at night lights up as it has never done before, as though the planet is an egg hatching, going from one state to another. How we come out the other side of the transition is yet to be seen, and predictions are notorious for being wrong. What is certain is that the world at the end of this century will be radically different from today. How it is different depends on our actions now. We don’t know whether the current global and political economic system can cope with the rapid changes that are being caused by our vast numbers.
As we enter a new epoch of technology we can forget the tired view of politics and economics. Everything from the past is irrelevant as we enter a new phase in both human and the Earth's evolution. A new level of evolution single connected global awareness and knowledge base is here to stay. A planetary awareness as every human can communicate with every other and have knowledge of everything. The level of change from the internet, it and connectedness is as significant as the leap from single cell organisms to multi cell, creating a planet wide new form of interconnected life, a sentient Gaia. A self supporting hyper intelligent super organism comprised of millions of individual super-humans is developing from the current turmoil of simultaneous human collapse and technological revolution.
A new civilisation will be created through a period of metamorphosis that will be long and hard, dwarfing the changes of the past. It will be easier to get through the coming storm with a smaller population: the smaller the population, the fewer the people who will suffer.
The circumstances of the peak population date will be of our own making. Predictions of population are unreliable, but we can influence the future. We can change the numbers directly through our own actions. Unlike climate breakdown, we can address our numbers easily and directly; we can count the number of humans.
The sooner we reach peak human, the sooner we will reach peak consumption. Figures have been set to attempt to limit the temperate increase to 2°C. Greenhouse gases, once in the atmosphere, are there for thousands of years. If CO2 level rises aren’t stopped, global geoengineering at astronomical cost may be employed to reduce it. It is untried, untested technology and a huge gamble. For human numbers, it is simple. We can provide family planning, humanely, effectively and inexpensively, for the benefit of everyone. It could be accomplished by one billionaire, and the Gates Foundation is trying its best.
A target should be set, as with global temperatures, for reaching ‘peak human’. We have targets for climate change to keep temperatures from rising above 2°C from pre-industrial levels, so why not have targets for maximum populations? It could be set as a date by which we aim to reach a peak, or by a number, or both. It has to be seen as an aim, something for the common good, for the community, for wildlife and for future generations.
As with climate breakdown and CO2 emission targets, countries would aim for below replacement fertility rates. Countries that have already achieved below replacement levels could partner with countries that are above their targets. Arrangements could be made for co-operation with assistance in family planning provision, and countries with low TRFs could accept people and workers to balance their own country’s drop in population. 104 countries have fertility greater than the replacement level of 2.1 – we should aim for all countries to reduce to this level.
A View from the Peak
Reaching ‘peak human’ can’t come soon enough. It will be the first time in all history that human population has not increased. Reaching the plateau moment when we know population will begin to decline will be the greatest of all our achievements. Once this moment has been reached, life for everyone, and everything, will become easier. The sooner we reach the peak, the sooner we can see the improvements a reducing population will bring.
There needs to be universal realisation that our numbers cannot be supported without catastrophic environmental side effects. There must be awareness that we have to stabilise and reduce our numbers as quickly and humanely as possible to give the world a fighting chance to save what is left of nature and make it to the 22nd century as unscathed as possible.
Peak human would also coincide with the environmental minimum: the day Mother Earth is at its lowest ebb, but also the starting point of environmental recovery. The day that all of the hard-working environmental charities will begin to see the unstoppable tide of human destruction finally begin to recede and their work will become easier and more rewarding. That day will see the number of critically endangered species decrease for the first time.
The day we reach Peak Human will be the greatest day and turning point in history for the future of both humans and the planet.
Power of the People
Population and environmental activists of the world have a true vision of a better future. We have to keep our eyes on the future and the great achievements possible with a revived natural world. The sooner we get on with addressing our basic problems, the sooner we can make the world a great place. It could be a place of natural peace and harmony working alongside technology and invention – an advanced, balanced and sustainable world.
”Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it's time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment.”
David Attenborough, Life of Mammals, 2002
We have all the answers: they are simple and achievable. We need an attitude of optimism, determination and positivity. We need the right mind-set to achieve them: a socio-political setting to enable lower birth-rate policies and an implementation of global-scale education and family planning.
We must come together as people of the same planet, to save our natural world companions. The people in charge: politicians, business leaders, corporations, charities and religious leaders, all need to work together and realise the benefits of acting and the dangers of not. We need to look at how the world would be so much better and consciously make the changes required in order to achieve that world. We have to talk about how amazing the future will be when we allow nature to return to its former rightful place and enjoy watching the number of species increase and be part of helping that re-naturalisation.
Things will only change when enough people become aware and don’t hide from the truth. We should not be silent when we have more reason to speak up than ever before. Our collective mind-set needs to change: In the 1970s, when population was openly talked about on TV shows and in the media, there was no climate breakdown or realisation of the Sixth Extinction, but people could still see reasons not to have large families. Now that real existential crises are unfolding, we should be talking more; we have to wake up from our daydream and recognise the reality of the dire situation we’re in. The world has never been in the situation that it is currently in. This isn’t a once-in-a-lifetime event - it’s a once-in-a-geological-epoch event. Population growth can be slowed through collective action. The power to achieve sustainable population levels is in our hands.
A Brave New World
Every single one of the world’s problems would be improved by a smaller world population. Once we reach the turning point of returning the world to its rightful owners, the world will be an immeasurably better place. We will have pressed the pause button and then have the chance to press rewind. All of the nightmares of climate breakdown, war, famine and disease will begin to disappear.
We have to fight against our own desires for large families and for material wealth. The fight is against ourselves and our own ‘wealth’, making it a perverse and counter-intuitive fight. But if there is anything worth us all fighting for, it’s for a world in balance with nature.
There are many beneficial effects that lowering the population will produce. Technology remains in place, with all its advantages, but the destruction and pollution of industrialisation all vanish. Every one of the impacts outlined in the previous chapters go into reverse. The result is a world of peace, plenty and serenity for all to enjoy.
As our numbers decrease, the natural equilibrium of the planet would recover. Life would become infinitely better; everyone could live safe, happy lives, with no worries about food, money or shelter. If a serious effort was put into lowering the birth rates globally, it could be achieved in a few decades, with the world seeing true benefits within a few years. The effects would gradually accelerate, with each year bringing more benefits than the previous year.
As more space becomes available, average wealth increases. In the dreamland of an uncrowded planet, idylls long lost to overcrowding will return. Housing will be cheap as supply outstrips demand. Falling house prices will make investors cry out, but in reality are a good thing and are a small price to pay: they are a win for everyone as salaries can be spent on having a life, rather than on having a mortgage for life. Unwanted housing will be abandoned to return to nature and be left as empty shelters for bats, birds and spiders.
Enhanced Nature
By becoming biocentric in our outlook we can change the world for the better. One positive impact of increased CO2 emissions is ‘re-greening’, as plants have increased growth with more CO2 in the atmosphere. This in turn also helps to slow the level of emission rise, fitting in perfectly with James Lovelock’s Gaia theory of the Earth functioning as a self-regulating organism.
As populations decrease, so will the use of artificial nitrogen fertilisers, monocultures and GM crops. The unnatural processes involved disappear, allowing natural states to return, enhancing the soil, water availability and environment. Modern technologies and techniques can be used in innovative ways to make use of the power of nature to do all the things we’ve relied on fertiliser to do. By eliminating the industrial use of fertilisers, crops can be produced using the same natural composts provided free of charge by nature. Soil quality can improve, resulting in higher and higher yields year on year as organic materials return to depleted soils. Bringing nature back into the fold of agriculture can also eliminate the need for pesticides, by encouraging the natural predators of the pests themselves. This can all be done in a modern, managed way, while allowing nature to work its magic. Technology can still be used to maximise crop yields, but can be done in harmony with nature.
We can reforest the world, bringing immense benefits. Number one is the natural carbon sink of forests, with woodland being the greatest, easiest and most natural way for the Earth to recover from the near-fatal wound we have inflicted. Just walking in a wood is good for you, relieving stress and sheltering you from the Sun and wind. Wildlife returns with abundance, with trees providing habitats for hundreds of species of insects and providing food for birds and animals of all shapes and sizes.
Trees should be planted everywhere as fast as possible. One mature oak tree can produce 10,000 new oaks in a year. In the UK, there are one hundred million oak trees. There would be one billion if everyone in the UK planted twenty acorns. Trees don’t even need to be planted individually by hand – forests can be grown by simple spreading of mixed tree seed. This can be done mechanically in the same way as a farmer sows his crops of wheat: nature does the rest.
We have the technology to turn deserts into green oases. Solar irrigation can create forests, cropland and jungles from desert. Once installed, free power from the Sun can be used to purify salt water and then pump it onto land. Given that the useable land is a valuable, limited resource, this process could add millions of acres of useable land to the planet. There would be land for wildlife and crops where none existed before. The ideal venue for this to begin is the Middle East’s deserts, owned by people made immensely rich through fossil fuels. Using their wealth for the good of the planet would be a supreme gesture.
Large-scale solar desalination plants could create rivers of pure water that would then be pumped into a network of ever-smaller tributaries, the reverse of natural rivers. The network could gradually build over time, creating arable farmland and forest. Once the land is greened, the amount of water needed per acre would decrease as natural shade increases together with soil quality, reducing water loss through evaporation.
Realising Utopia
The world would be dramatically improved if just one generation had on average one child. It is a small sacrifice compared to the consequences of inaction. When we finally emerge on the other side of the population and consumption mountain that we have been relentlessly climbing life will become utopian. We will look back with disbelief at what we did and how close we came to the point of no return.
The biocentric human world works in harmony with the natural world. Everyone has the space and resources they need. All energy comes from the Sun. There is no pollution. All waste is recycled. Cars drive themselves quietly around open, congestion-free roads. There is no war or conflict as there is nothing to fight for, or against. The climate is no longer changing, as maximum human effort is put into the greatest global transitional reforesting program ever seen. Forests are re-growing even faster than they were chopped down. Immense solar water-pumping stations purify and pump fresh water to the deserts, turning them into virgin paradises, speeding the re-absorption of CO2. Atmospheric CO2 levels have stabilised and are set to reverse.
All environmental charity work is redundant as animals begin to thrive and multiply in their natural environments. The millions once employed by charities instead now help to expand and naturalise the animal environments that were once so close to disappearing forever. The endangered species list is decreasing every year and will soon disappear to the history books as the Sixth Extinction comes to an end. The news reports of wild animal populations that once showed numbers dwindling to dangerously low levels now report booming populations not seen since the 19th century, with massive herds of elephants and tigers by the thousand roaming the wild jungles of India.
Food is cheap and plentiful, with all crops organic, many grown by hand close to home as people have time on their hands and enjoy working with nature. No child ever goes hungry. All children are wanted, loved, and cared for. Property is so cheap everyone has a house, and the millions slowly being left to be reclaimed by nature are now playgrounds for wildlife.
The Grand Metamorphosis
The last few centuries have seen more changes than ever witnessed before in human history, and we are set to continue the revolution. A phone in the palm of your hand today gives everyone unprecedented access to every piece of information on the planet - science fiction has turned into fact in only a few years. This one change has transformed the world and the changes are set to continue.
In the 1920s, H.G. Wells wrote that:
‘Human life, the tune, the quality, the elements, are changing visibly before our eyes. Human life, as a matter of fact and not a matter of sentiment, is different from what it has ever been before, and it is rapidly becoming more different. Perhaps never in the whole history of life before the present time, has there been a living species subjected to so fiercely urgent, many-sided and comprehensive a process of change as ours to-day.’
The planet is in the middle of a grand metamorphosis. Viewed from space, the planet at night lights up as it has never done before, as though the planet is an egg hatching, going from one state to another. How we come out the other side of the transition is yet to be seen, and predictions are notorious for being wrong. What is certain is that the world at the end of this century will be radically different from today. How it is different depends on our actions now. We don’t know whether the current global and political economic system can cope with the rapid changes that are being caused by our vast numbers.
As we enter a new epoch of technology we can forget the tired view of politics and economics. Everything from the past is irrelevant as we enter a new phase in both human and the Earth's evolution. A new level of evolution single connected global awareness and knowledge base is here to stay. A planetary awareness as every human can communicate with every other and have knowledge of everything. The level of change from the internet, it and connectedness is as significant as the leap from single cell organisms to multi cell, creating a planet wide new form of interconnected life, a sentient Gaia. A self supporting hyper intelligent super organism comprised of millions of individual super-humans is developing from the current turmoil of simultaneous human collapse and technological revolution.
A new civilisation will be created through a period of metamorphosis that will be long and hard, dwarfing the changes of the past. It will be easier to get through the coming storm with a smaller population: the smaller the population, the fewer the people who will suffer.