The Population Problem and Average Awareness

The Population Problem

It is, indeed, one of the two big "environmental" questions. The explosive growth in the number of human beings on this planet -- in tandem with the average person's ecological impact -- is why the earth is now stressed in ways that have never been seen before.

Dramatic population growth began with the birth of agriculture and more stable food supplies some 10,000 years ago. At the time of Jesus, there were about 250 million people spread across the earth. 1,500 years later, at the dawning of the modern era, that number had doubled to 500 million. In less than 300 years, it reached 1 billion. Then it doubled again in less than 200 years -- in 1945 the global human population stood at 2 billion. In just the last 50 years, it has tripled to 6 billion.

Increasing consumption of the earth's resources would be a problem even with a stable population. When it is combined with such a rapidly growing numbers, the problems are multiplied. Population is an issue for ecological sustainability that must be addressed.

The population problem is generally discussed in terms of fertility and birthrates. (On a national level, the population question also gets into the politically difficult topic of immigration.) If there are too many people, the thinking goes, the problem must come from bringing too many new people into the world.

But that's not really why human populations have exploded. The most dramatic changes in the last hundred years are not in birth rates, but in death rates. In today's world, the average person is living far longer.

What are some of the factors that have allowed longer lives and growing populations?

Food production has gone up, food distribution has improved, and not as much food spoils, so people -- on the whole -- aren't starving.

Safe water supplies have been developed in communities around the world, so people are not dying of water-borne diseases.

Insecticides have reduced the death toll of diseases like malaria.

Viral inoculations have essentially eliminated devastating diseases like smallpox, and antibiotics have reduced the death toll from bacterial infections.

And, in what I have heard is the single most significant factor, the spread of knowledge about basic sanitation procedures -- wash your hands, and don't put raw sewage into the water supply -- have dramatically improved lifespans.

Why has the world's population quadrupled in about a century? Not so much because fertility has increased, but because many technological and social factors have helped people -- on the average -- live much longer. (It is also interesting to note that two of the hot-button political issues in the US -- Social Security and funding for health care -- are directly related to the same matters of longevity. Ecology and justice are inseparable.)

We have an exploding human population because we, as a global community, have done some very good things. We have spread better nutrition, better health care, and better health education. We have lifted up those factors as basic human rights that must be preserved and enhanced. But those caring and compassionate programs by governments, churches and other agencies have been major factors in creating the population explosion.

Dramatic changes in public health and nutrition really have created a global "culture of life" where people are living much longer. But the unintended consequence is that the rapidly expanding human population is now crowding out other forms of life, and is stressing the life-giving systems of the earth.

When it comes to the challenge of global population, there is a real, and often unexamined, difficulty for those of us in progressive faith communities. The life-affirming, life-promoting values and ethics that have been at the core of our belief and that have driven so much of our mission and ministry turn out to be some of the very values and programs that have created an over-populated earth.

I am often frustrated by the powerful religious constituencies that refuse to allow even serious discussions about birth control and population issues. My personal moral grounding finds those stances unrealistic and unacceptable.

But in all honesty, I have to ask: are we in the progressive church willing to wrestle as deeply with our own faith and ethics as we ask of those who reject birth control? Are we willing to look at the long-term implications of our promotion of health as a factor in population growth?

That's a hard challenge. In my moral framework, I cannot find it acceptable when AIDS runs rampant, or when disease and pollution cut short lives, or when famine kills millions. Those tragedies violate my morality about the value of life, and yet working to preserve life reinforces the population growth that I know is a global problem.

Perhaps my own moral reactions in that sphere can help me to be more understanding of those who are morally repulsed by condoms. Being understanding of those moral principles, however, does not let us off the hook. The fact that these are difficult moral questions does not take away the urgent problem of human over-population.

Eventually, the topic comes up in any serious conversation about the desperate state of the earth. What about population?

The ecological fact is clear: there are too many of us. The very hard questions have to do with how we can stabilize or even reduce the human population. Those are difficult questions that deal with both conception and birth, and with what is done to promote health and longevity. There are no easy answers -- and there is no avoiding the problem.

Let us push our religious and political leaders to wrestle deeply and honestly with the full scope of the population problem. For life -- human and otherkind -- will not be served if we fail to act, and our exploding population overwhelms this fragile earth.

Average Awareness

Surely you've had this experience: your church or club needs to raise $1,000, and there are 100 members. A leader suggests that "if everyone gives $10, we'll be in great shape!"

So the appeal goes out, urging one and all to make the average contribution of $10. The most loyal and generous donors comply with the request, and send in their modest checks. Unfortunately, many others only chip in $1, $2 or $5, and quite a few don't give anything at all. The drive falls far short, because most gifts are not "average."

Experienced fund-raisers know about the "donor pyramid". They know that, to raise a thousand bucks, somebody is going to have to pledge a hundred dollars or more, and quite a few folk will be needed at the $25 and $50 level. The relatively few big givers balance out lots of small contributions, so that the average finally works out to $10.

Not everyone is average. Indeed, almost no one sits right at the average, no matter what is being measured -- charitable giving, family income, height, weight, or ecological impact.

We don't -- and shouldn't -- try to deal with all situations by suggesting what would be good for the average. It is important to know how each person or setting differs from the calculated midpoint, and to respond appropriately to the uniqueness of each context.

A doctor should suggest one mix of diet and exercise for someone who is 25 pounds below the average weight for people of their height, age and build, and a different mix for someone who is 50 pounds above that average.

The international "cap-and-trade" strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are being established to meet the Kyoto protocols -- and that would be implemented in the US under the Climate Stewardship Act -- recognize that the costs for reducing emissions are not the same for all sources. Cheap and easy reductions are maximized, instead of asking all polluters to make equivalent average reductions.

So, too, many cities have found that they can solve urban air quality problems -- not by trying to get all cars to be just a bit little cleaner -- but by getting the worst oil-burning, smoke-belching clunkers off the road. The dirtiest 1% of the cars cause a surprisingly large amount of the total pollution. Targeting those few vehicles is a cheap, easy and effective way to clean the air.

Last week's Eco-Justice Notes dealt with the thorny question of population as a concern for ecological sustainability. In a single-sentence lead-in to the topic, I wrote, "The explosive growth in the number of human beings on this planet -- in tandem with the average person's ecological impact -- is why the earth is now stressed in ways that have never been seen before."

As one reader promptly reminded me, that mythical "average person" is not the one who has to make the changes that are needed to move us toward sustainability. The problem is located in a relatively small group which is placing huge demands on the resources and systems of our beleaguered planet.

The researchers of the Worldwatch Institute have categorized the most affluent 20% of the world's population as the "consumer class." We, the consumers, are described as people who regularly eat meat and processed foods, travel widely, live in climate-controlled and appliance-filled buildings, and who surround ourselves with a profusion of short-lived, throwaway goods. We, the richest 20%, take home 64% of the world's income, and have a similarly disproportionate ecological impact.

The challenge is not to reduce the world's "average" consumption and pollution by 20%, but to reduce the impact of the consumer class to perhaps half of what it is now. If we, the wealthy, make those sort of changes, then the global "average" impact shifts way down, and humanity as a whole is far closer to long-term sustainability.

But that brings us back to difficult parts of last week's question, which looked at the interrelationship between the number of human beings on this planet, the average person's ecological impact, and the ways in which well-intentioned liberal/progressive values add to the problem.

Our progressive values have affirmed the levels of health care and nutrition that have led directly to the population explosion of the last century. So, too, our values may affirm a quality of life that requires a moderate degree of affluence -- not the excesses of the consumerist lifestyle, but more comfort and freedom than comes with bare subsistence.

Once again, we have a difficult question. What happens if our values lead us to hold up a certain level of affluence as morally right for the human community, and we determine that the Earth cannot sustain us at that level with our current or projected numbers?

Somewhere along the line, we need to do the math, look at what we consider to be an appropriate average standard of living, define an ethically acceptable range around that average, and then see if the Earth can sustain the human population at that level.

We can ignore population if we are willing to ask all people to live at very minimal levels of comfort and freedom -- and if we think we can actually get the rich of the world to make those dramatic changes! But if our values tell us that The Good Life requires more than bare subsistence -- if we ethically and culturally affirm somewhat moderate lifestyles -- then we also have to talk seriously about the problem of "overpopulation".

In our churches, our families, and our political conversations, may we probe the realities of how much this planet can provide, and how that can be divided justly among us all. As we accept the limits of the Earth, may we also strive to find a hopeful vision that balances population with a joyous, fulfilling way of life.