As anthropogenic climate change threatens human existence on Earth, historians have begun to explore the scientific antecedents of environmental Malthusianism, the idea that human population growth is a major driver of ecosystem degradation and that environmental protection requires a reduction in human numbers. These accounts, however, neglect the antagonistic relationship between environmental Malthusianism and demography, thereby creating an illusion of scientific consensus. This article details the entwined histories of environmental Malthusianism and demography, revealing points of disagreement – initially over methods of analyzing and predicting population growth and later over the role of population growth in ecosystem degradation – and moments of strategic collaboration that benefited both groups of scientists. It contends that the image of scientific consensus in existing histories has lent support to ongoing calls for population control, detracting attention from more proximate causes of environmental devastation, such as polluting modes of production, extractive business practices and government subsidies for fossil fuel development.
Abridged conclusion:
Since the end of World War II, environmental Malthusians have pointed to ecosystem degradation as supposedly obvious evidence that the Earth is already overpopulated and have called for population control as an alternative to environmental regulation and economic redistribution. Despite their scientific opposition, demographers collaborated with environmental Malthusians just long enough in the 1950s and 1960s to create a global population movement that advanced the agendas of both groups. The harms caused by that movement – both by governments that explicitly limited childbearing, such as China, and by supposedly voluntary programs that nonetheless imposed contraception where it was not desired – have been well documented (Connelly, 2008; Greenhalgh, 2008; Hartmann, 1995). However, even the most critical histories of the population control movement largely fail to recognize the illusory nature of the scientific consensus that claimed to undergird it.
I don’t think so. I think there are too many humans, but my approach to the problem is to educate and empower each other to make our own family planning decisions rather than pressuring or forcing people to have children who don’t want them. I believe that we’ll naturally maintain sustainable numbers when allowed free choice in a healthy environment.
I don’t think overpopulation is our biggest concern regarding unsustainability though, only a very small portion. We need to address more serious issues first, but the good news is that overthrowing capitalism addresses pretty much every problem simultaneously.
No, you’re simply a victim of misinformation and propaganda making you believe that.
There are more than enough resources to go around and we don’t have to needlessly structure our society with endless sprawl and wasteful use of space. The only reason there seems to be “too many people” is our current societal structures that push people towards wanton wastefulness and excess which exacerbates the issue.
We can go back to being community driven and living in dense, walkable cities instead of everyone clamoring over each other to obtain their own little fiefdoms.
But can we continue to provide for 8 billion people if we cease things like unsustainable farming practices and nonrenewable energy? (Without everyone agreeing to be vegan. That’s not a realistic wish.)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9315181/
Abstract:
Abridged conclusion:
am I a bad person if I think there are too many humans but have no idea or capabilities to change that fact?
I don’t think so. I think there are too many humans, but my approach to the problem is to educate and empower each other to make our own family planning decisions rather than pressuring or forcing people to have children who don’t want them. I believe that we’ll naturally maintain sustainable numbers when allowed free choice in a healthy environment.
I don’t think overpopulation is our biggest concern regarding unsustainability though, only a very small portion. We need to address more serious issues first, but the good news is that overthrowing capitalism addresses pretty much every problem simultaneously.
No, you’re simply a victim of misinformation and propaganda making you believe that.
There are more than enough resources to go around and we don’t have to needlessly structure our society with endless sprawl and wasteful use of space. The only reason there seems to be “too many people” is our current societal structures that push people towards wanton wastefulness and excess which exacerbates the issue.
We can go back to being community driven and living in dense, walkable cities instead of everyone clamoring over each other to obtain their own little fiefdoms.
But can we continue to provide for 8 billion people if we cease things like unsustainable farming practices and nonrenewable energy? (Without everyone agreeing to be vegan. That’s not a realistic wish.)