“Depopulate and die of boredom”, The Age, 26/4. Oooh, the sheer cluelessness of this opinion piece is unbelievable!
Why cut Australia’s population to 7 million when it already suffers from too few people. It must take a rather active imagination to look at a map of Australia and think that it is too full.
If you look at a climatic map of Australia, you can see that much of the land is desert – not exactly habitable! The areas where many people live are facing a crises as the water supplies dwindle due to climate change. (Wikipedia: Climate of Australia, for more information)
Last week Sandra Kanck, the national president of the environmental group Sustainable Population Australia, urged the country to cut down its population from 21 million souls to just 7 million. To do so, she recommended we adopt a one-child policy, completely eliminating middle-child syndrome and saving the planet in the process. China’s one-child policy appears to have gone from a massive human rights violation that is universally condemned to “Hey, now that’s an idea”.
As I have noted in previous entries, China’s population is so huge that it must take drastic measures to restrain further growth if it wants to sustain social stability. “Human rights” is not a priority (and some might argue, a luxury).
Certainly, Sustainable Population Australia is just a fringe environment group, and criticising them for their warped moral compass is like criticising the Citizens Electoral Council for their bad economics. But the idea that we desperately need to shut down breeding for a while in order to save the planet is surprisingly widespread.
Quite a lot of people support SPA, which shows the concern people feel for the environmental degradation and overcrowding caused by overpopulation.
But if you believe that population growth will eventually lead to the collapse of our civilisation and planet, then the last millennium of human history must be very confusing. Over and over, we have demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to innovate our way out of any theoretical “limit to growth”. So it takes a strange sort of intellectual hubris to imagine that the exact moment you are alive just happens to be the exact moment in human history that we cross the “too many people” line. In the 1970s, zero population growth advocates were pretty sure the end was nigh, but humanity has managed to barrel on for a few more decades. Anyway, few species have found flirting with extinction a particularly effective survival strategy.
The anthropocentric belief that “human ingenuity” and technology can solve all man-made problems is sheer hubris – and can lead to disaster. The Earth has never before had to cope with such a huge human population – and the waste products emitted by such numbers. We are already seeing the consequences now – water, food and energy (e.g. oil) shortages – and it could be said we are “flirting with extinction” now because of the doctrine of endless growth the world’s economies are in thrall to.
But we could spend all day debating the impact of population on the environment. I’m more concerned about another thing: can you imagine how excruciatingly boring Australia would be with only 7 million people?
[…]
Pretty much everything interesting and exciting about the world is the direct result of human action. Fewer people would mean fewer people doing cool stuff. How would life be without basil pesto, the British version of The Office, single malt whisky, SuperTed or Facebook? Nasty and brutish, sure, but agonisingly long.
I would not miss these at all – and Nature provides some exciting events in any case! Most so-called culture is unmitigated crap. I, for one, would be quite happy to live amongst a smaller population – less competiton for resources, more living space around oneself.
And let’s face it – whatever meaning has been imposed on the environment has been imposed by people. So when deep greens exalt nature as morally superior to humanity, it comes across as just a little bit stupid. When the chips are down, surely our loyalty lies with the human race.
Chris Berg is another “humans are wonderful” advocate. Yes, humans are clever and innovative, but these traits can be self-destructive. I don’t want to see humanity become extinct (I doubt few concerned about overpopulation do – else why would we be so concerned?); I would like to see humanity become wiser, more modest and frugal. We are a part of Nature, not separate from it! To be concerned about the environment is to take an interest in our own long-term survival.
I sent off a letter to The Age (don’t know if it will get published):
Chris Berg (“Depopulate and die of boredom”, The Age, 26/4) evidently hasn’t noticed that an Australian map shows most of the continent is dry, uninhabitable desert, with dwindling water supplies in many regions. I would happily live in an Australia (and world) with a smaller population as it means humanity and the environment would have a sustainable future – and would simply be pleasanter. The “go forth and multiply” mindset is well and truly outdated.
