In his book, The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom (2015), Michael Shermer makes a well-supported argument for how the secular world has done more good for the world than the world of religion. He believes that, “The scientific revolution led to the Age of Reason and to the Enlightenment and that changed everything.” He further states that,”…these changes reversed our species historical trend downward and that we can do more to elevate humanity, extend the arc and bend it forever upward.”
Not so fast, I say to the founder of the Skeptic society, I am skeptical. The moral arc of humanity cannot continue to go upward when the trend of the human population arc is also going upward.
As a science writer, Shermer knows the earth is a limited place and that humans are at a trophic level that is meant to be inhabited by a very limited number of individuals. As our numbers continue to climb in a hockey stick -like upward curve, our resources decline, our density increases and along with it an increase in scarcity. This is hardly a situation where our collective morality will be incubated well.
Morality which includes an equal treatment under just laws, equal job opportunity, equal access to healthy food, etc., are all threatened by the far-reaching tentacles of overpopulation. Simply put, when demand exceeds supply there is an immoral scramble for getting one’s fair share.
Why are water wars a concern in the not too distant future? Because humanity has done a most superb job using up the fresh water supply faster than it can renew due to our ever-growing numbers. As our population grows so does how much water we consume for us, our livestock, manufacturing and transportation.
I am a fan of Shermer and his work in the field of skepticism and secularism. He refers to many examples of how science has contributed to an improvement in our morality. But science is not benign, it has contributed to both sides of the overpopulation predicament. It has contributed both to increasing our numbers and the increasingly scary ways in which we die. Science has increased our longevity with medical procedures and drugs and also made birth control available. Science has made the nuclear war possible and created carcinogenic chemicals and created a whole scientific field around solving infertility. At the end of the day the birth side has won, putting unrelenting pressure on the biosphere as we continue to add over 1 million in less than a week on the planet.
I am not naïve enough to think that the world would be instantly more moral if our numbers were suddenly in line with the finite supply of our minerals, energy, water and soil. Furthermore, I know that in immoral hands, a doctrine with overpopulation as its main storyline would be disastrous. What I am saying is that overpopulation itself is a roadblock to any kind of moral progress. Extending the moral arc of humanity, no matter how secular and scientific we become, is practically impossible in a world of nearly 8 billion growing by 80+ million a year.
Each country has a moral obligation to its citizens and resources to assess its own limits. Science and reason must be used to determine what the ecosystem can sustainably afford to offer each person. The scientists at the Global Footprint Network have already done the homework for us, and it doesn’t look good for the moral arc. I am making the argument that the moral arc will continue to go down, and even crash as the population of our country and the world goes up.
If you accept my premise that scarcity, brought on by too much demand on a limited planet, is a petri dish for disorder and immorality, then opposing growth is our collective moral duty. My colleagues and I come from a place of wanting to prevent chaos and helping the biosphere. We have taken on the ever more treacherous mantle of screaming about overpopulation because we see the big picture. I have asked people why they work on this issue and they all say basically the same thing: they want to save the biosphere that supports us and the wildlife and open spaces they love.
As 8 Billion Angels filmmaker and overpopulation activist Terry Spahr says, “Global warming, food and water shortages, catastrophic storms, extinction of species, plant and animal habitat loss…. The list of environmental, social and economic catastrophes affecting our planet with greater frequency and severity goes on and on. If there was a simple root cause and a fundamental solution, wouldn’t you want to know?” The answer, he goes on to say, is unsustainable human population. I would add that if you are dedicated to stopping those catastrophes, then you exhibit some pretty hefty moral chops.
Indeed, overpopulation activists are among the ones holding on to the reins of morality and justice. The world that Shermer discusses can certainly benefit from more rational thought, but that must include thought and work on overpopulation. Unless we start see working on this critically important issue as a moral imperative, then morality itself will be rendered irrelevant, for it will be flattened by the thundering feet of billions of desperate people.
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Karen Shragg is a lifelong environmentalist, naturalist, educator, poet, author and overpopulation activist. Karen received her doctorate from the University of St. Thomas in 2002, following two other degrees in education. She has recently retired as a long-time naturalist and nature center director to start the LLC, Move Upstream Environmental Consulting (MUSEC). As a member of the advisory board of the non-profit “World Population Balance”, and “Earth Overshoot”, she has become increasingly alarmed by the lack of discourse surrounding the overpopulation crisis. In 2015, her book Move Upstream: A Call to Solve Overpopulation, was published by Freethought House Press Her new book moves the discussion further upstream. Change Our Stories, Change our World will be out December 2020, by the same press.
|
![[groups_small]](groups_small.gif)