Humanity’s Ecological Impact—in Size, Scale, Scope, and Speed
In alliance with a growing number of reputable socio-ecologists, I’m convinced a smaller global human population may potentially provide a more livable and sustainable planet. I also agree that attaining a stable state presents a formidable challenge, and will require taking urgent measures to prevent, mitigate, adapt, and restore the ecological damage our expanding human superorganism has perpetrated.
Because ecocide is generally associated with humanity’s substantial adverse impacts, an increasing number of experts commonly refer to our human-centered era as the Anthropocene. Another term—the Great Acceleration—is being used to emphasize the speed at which harmful planetary effects are occurring. Yet another apt description—The Great Unraveling—was the title of a 2004 book by American economist and columnist Paul Krugman, and the Post Carbon Institute recently published a free online report titled Welcome to the Great Unraveling: Navigating the Polycrisis.
Sustainability experts warn that, by continuing our current growth trajectory of population and consumption, we are hastening the potential for ecological tipping points. Any failing system, whether of human or ecological origins, can potentially generate positive growth-and-collapse feedback loops that, in turn, affect other systems. This possibility presents a somber realization: if humanity fails to ameliorate and/or avert long-term cataclysmic ecological effects, the consequences will be dire for all lifeforms, including our species. In sum, we need to adopt and implement strategies, methods, and techniques that address all challenges, as determined by the most accomplished collective expertise we can muster.
In this paper I present an outline summary of topics warranting both in-depth and top-down attention by world leaders, along with bottom-up collective thought and action by world citizens. I think you will agree that most global citizens—leaders and followers—need to better understand the complex symbiotic interrelationships within and among all life systems. Such a complex, complicated goal will require a holistic consideration of all systemic processes in all dimensions—environmental, scientific, economic, socio-cultural, geopolitical, et al.
All the while, it will especially help to realize how exceptionally dependent we are in consuming carbon-based energy sources (fossil fuels) to help power most human activities. Clearly, humanity will increasingly face inevitable scarcity and decline of all resources needed for sustaining most lifeforms, particularly if those of us in the more developed world continue enjoying past and current extravagant levels of consumption.
A growing community of sustainability experts concur that the neoliberal economic paradigm, which has persevered for the last hundred years or so, is a defective operating system for our species, and even more so for our planet’s biosphere. For the past several decades humanity has blindly accepted the culturally-acquired belief that ongoing, unlimited material growth (consumption) is possible. As more people are realizing, however, this modern “all material growth is good” myth is a terribly flawed concept, a civilizational addiction contested only by a relatively small yet well-informed and growing cadre of socio-ecological activists, including this author. The principal message espoused by this eco-oriented group is this:
As long as our human population remains overpopulated—continuing to grow and overconsume finite resources—the life-sustaining capacity of the Earth’s biosphere will increasingly experience harmful impacts, in turn negatively affecting all lifeforms that have existed alongside our species for the past 12,000 years, plus other lifeforms that have existed for millions of years.
At this critical juncture in our journey to the future, it appears we must decide which of two principal directions we will choose to pursue. The status-quo “business as usual” direction in which we’re currently headed is especially perilous. By ignoring the pervasive systemic role of population growth, we effectively leave the responsibility for managing population numbers to Mother Nature. Also, without a carefully strategized humane approach to lowering population, the possibility of multiple cascading crises spiraling out of control and causing a partial to total collapse of civilization and ecosystems appears evermore likely.
Although many current flora and fauna species are increasingly endangered, and thousands projected to go extinct in coming decades, many species may eventually adapt to changing biophysical conditions—if an eco-savvy, smaller human population allows the ecosphere to stabilize (as well as possible). Perhaps the only positive news this narrative presents is that, without our domineering presence, evolutionary processes may continue promoting species capable of acclimating to changing ecological conditions. Yes, the Earth will eventually survive, and new species will evolve, but the biophysical conditions enjoyed by humanity for the past ten-thousand or so years will never be the same again.
Of course, the alternative direction provides a more positive approach and desired long-term outcome. The major challenge will be urgently coalescing humanity to collectively strategize and implement short-to-intermediate and long-term humane measures. The primary objective will require developing a comprehensive plan with the potential of strategically and systematically lowering human numbers over several decades—until a stable population can be realized. According to population activists, this is the direction in which we should be heading—posthaste!
Regardless of which direction we choose, the lives of current and future world citizens will be far more challenged going forward. For anyone seriously concerned about enjoying a satisfactory future life, it’s essential to prepare well for facing potentially harsh survival conditions. Sadly, the ideal time for making practical long-term survival plans was decades ago, during the 1970s. Yet, we must do something. Waiting longer will only allow world conditions to worsen faster. Whatever solutions are considered, they will probably include symbiotic combinations of retro, contemporary, and innovative approaches.
In concluding this section, I reemphasize the single goal that might help most of Earth’s remaining species to survive and perhaps flourish: humanely lowering human population and consumption of limited resources. The formula I=PAT, as proposed by Paul R. Ehrlich and John P. Holdren in the early 1970s, provides a way to calculate humankind’s overall impact on the ecosphere. IPAT represents the four principal factors that help explain our developing ecological crises. Thus, Impact (effects) = (is the result of) Population (size) x Affluence (consumption) x Technology. Note that population is the main driving factor, effectively amplifying per-capita consumption of merchandise and the resource input/output of the technologies used.
As for what should be done to attain a sustainable future, population experts agree that all strategies used must be practical and humane. For instance, overconsumption is inadvertently addressed with official policies that disincentivize the production and consumption of products deemed harmful (dangerous chemicals) or unessential (luxury items). Of course, taxation has proven useful as a harmless and effective disincentive method. For instance, taxing income and financial transactions of high earners helps reduce the income gap between lowest to highest earners, thereby allowing for more socio-economic equality and equity.
As for population growth, the most effective strategy begins with widespread educational programs that encourage small families, according to a standard worldwide birthrate of one or two children per couple, an approach applied equally to all nations, rich and poor. Additionally, it will also help to: 1) call out public attention to the subtle but coercive pronatalism propaganda spread by socio-economic and cultural institutions; 2) provide women with greater educational, economic, and self-governance opportunities; and 3) provide healthcare that includes access to family planning, contraception, adoption, and parenting. More information about this topic is provided by notable population organizations, including Population Balance.org.
With this introductory explanation in mind, we’ll continue addressing the key question: If humanity is successful in achieving a significantly lower, more stable, and sustainable human population, what are the potential health and well-being benefits for all earthly lifeforms? I think you’ll agree that the following discussion includes many positive benefits.
Our Human Nature—Biophysical, Psychological, and Social Traits
To better appreciate why a smaller human population should be a part of any serious future-oriented possible solutions, we first need to understand the evolutionary origins of our basic human nature. According to our planet’s historic timeline, we Homo sapiens have existed for around 300,000 years.
A summary of scientific findings concludes that our species represents the most recent evolutionary development of a primate (hominid) species that originated following the emergence of mammals 66-million years ago, following the devastating asteroid strike near what is now the present-day Yucatan peninsula in Mexico. That single cataclysmic event, known as the Cretaceous–Paleogene mass extinction event, was responsible for an approximate 75% demise of plant and animal species, including all non-avian dinosaurs.
Given this brief explanation of our evolutionary human origins, the following information helps explain our species.
- Human nature is a complex concept encompassing biological (nature) and cultural (nurture) factors, the result of evolutionary processes of natural selection and adaptation to specific environments and conditions that helped our species reproduce and survive.
- Humans are strongly influenced by cultural evolution and learning, traits not totally determined by genetics. Moreover, over time and under long-term conditions, cultural evolution can influence changes in human biology, including neurological systems affected by environmental and social pressures.
- Genetically and biophysically, we are related to every living thing, especially chimpanzees and bonobos, primates with whom we share 99% of DNA. While chimpanzees are more self-focused, bonobos are more socially oriented.
- For 90% of our existence, our ancestors existed as small-sized bands of hunter-gatherers (foragers), and only in the last ten-thousand or so years (the Holocene epoch, since the end of the Ice Age) have we been able to flourish with larger numbers, a trend that began with small settlements in habitable areas and gradually led to farming and animal husbandry. Eventually, the development of agriculture resulted in surplus food supplies, making it possible to support larger populations with the progressive formation of villages, towns, cities, states, and empires.
- The success of hunter-gatherers was largely due to the social cohesion achieved through intimate associations with all band members, which facilitated cooperation and collaboration, a uniquely human characteristic of altruistic and egalitarian social values that fostered equality and equity.
- Allegiance to one’s band, however, did not extend to other bands with whom there was minimal social contact—yet severe competition for essential limited resources. For safety and protection, it’s possible that cooperative alliances were formed with other bands.
- In learning to cooperate and collaborate, humans developed the requisite survival skills for assuring evolutionary progress, including the use of fire for warmth, cooking, and clearing land for protection. The most advanced skills were attributed to the development of abstract thought processes, making possible the development of language for communication, and the fashioning of tools for all of life needs, especially food, shelter, and clothing.
- Because early humans spent most of their time coping with day-to-day survival, the human brain evolved primarily for managing short-term thinking and planning (which largely explains the difficulties we have today in recognizing, acknowledging, and addressing such long-term challenges as climate change).
- When agriculture was adopted, the invention of the plow greatly enhanced the production and storage of surplus food. Because plowing required the power of large domesticated animals, such as oxen, the strength of male upper-body strength was needed. This new role of males—as managers of heavy-duty work—subsequently led women to assume most domestic duties, including care of children, who also helped with domestic tasks when capable.
- Because hunter-gatherers were totally dependent on their natural environments, they came to believe that plants, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena had souls (intrinsic value). This belief, known as animism, helped them form an ethos justifying the killing of animals, principally for food and protection. Over time, as domesticated animals began to be used for labor and food, humankind became further separated psycho-emotionally from the rest of Nature.
- As human populations increased, larger social groups were formed, creating greater societal complexity and progressively leading to patriarchal control of sociopolitical, economic, and religious institutions, the seeds of which were planted with the advent and development of agriculture.
- The patriarchal operating system that developed for maintaining social cohesion resulted in the growth of organized religion and the institution of moral and ethical socio-cultural guidelines. In Western Civilization, Judeo-Christian religious traditions fostered the anthropological concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent father-figure God. The establishment of Christianity as the dominant Western religion led to the social controls in force throughout the past several centuries—until confronting the challenges of modernity in the so-called Renaissance of the 16th and 17th centuries, and more so the 18th-century Enlightenment, with the ascent of scientific inquiry and methodology.
This cursory overview of our basic evolutionary human nature should help prepare us in coping with our current series of mounting physical, psycho-emotional, socio-cultural, geopolitical, and ecological challenges. For instance, we have been culturally conditioned to believe in human exceptionalism (anthropocentrism), inferring that humans are superior beings and exist separately from other species. The truth is, we are not so special that we could possibly survive without relying on the more-than-human natural world.
While our tribal nature compels loyalty and allegiance to our in-group, our views of outside groups may arouse suspicion, intolerance, and at worst, hatred of those we don’t know, understand, or respect. Regrettably, this inherited human trait partially accounts for the extreme polarities experienced in society today. Our short-termism nature is not helping, in a world growing ever more complex—in size, scale, scope, and speed.
Requisite Conditions for Developing a Sustainable Population
Because our expanding, over-consumptive human superorganism may be regarded as the metaphorical “upstream driver” of all ecological crises, it seems reasonable to consider the amount of resource consumption a model global human population might need to live sustainably. Determining a sustainable-sized global population requires an in-depth understanding regarding the potential extent of intolerable conditions that accelerating crises might inflict on large human populations and the biosphere. Predictions by experts vary, from moderate to severe levels.
Nate Hagens, executive director of The Institute for the Study of Energy & Our Future (ISEOF), addresses future predictions with his probabilistic view of future outcomes. He claims, “While there will ultimately be only one eventual outcome, the possible paths to that future fall in a distribution [pattern], with some results much more likely than others.” Although natural events and human actions may cause the various distribution patterns to shift over time, he says they cannot be perfectly predicted, partially because individuals tend to impute their own mental distribution, as shaped by their personal knowledge, biases, and perspectives. Hagens raises concerns about the role social media play in influencing our mental “distributions”. He wonders if, by thinking of the future as a spectrum, could we possibly avoid the state of certainty and complacency that inevitably leads to inaction? While some outcomes may be impossible, perhaps others will lead towards a more eco-oriented, low-consumption future, which he calls the Great Simplification.
This uncertainty applies to predictions of future population growth. As with any future predictions—in which world conditions can and will vary widely—no one can confidently predict whether population will increase or decrease. Indeed, experts’ educated opinions vary widely. For instance, the most quoted reference to future global population growth is provided by the UN’s projection, which posits an increase from the current 8-billion people to a peak of 10.5 billion in the mid-2080s. Thankfully, there are also some lower estimates deserving consideration.
A low-population size projection has been projected by Chris Bystroff, a professor of Biological Sciences and Computer Science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. In contrast to most studies, his research is based on a systems-dynamic model that also includes global carrying capacity, defined as the maximum number of individuals that can be indefinitely supported at a given consumption level within a particular environment. Bystroff’s findings suggest that the global biocapacity may already have declined to half of its historical value, with global carrying capacity placed in a 1965 range, and continuing to decline. In sum, his computer simulations suggest that population may have already peaked, or may possibly peak in the 2020s. He explains that the 2020 global census was not available at the time of the study, which could modify the final results.
An optimal population size may simply depend on discovering a desired “sweet spot”, whereby the planet’s carrying capacity—the natural resource usage consistent with regeneration capacity—is aligned equitably with human consumption, a natural state in which all lifeforms exist sustainably. American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s heralded hierarchy of needs provides a set of guidelines widely used in addressing an individual’s essential physical and psychoemotional needs. After a physical state of homeostasis is attained, individuals are more able to focus on other needs, from safety to belonging, esteem, and, finally, self-actualization.
Three well-known studies to determine an optimal population size—based on fulfilling essential life needs for all world citizens—are provided by The Overpopulation Project:
- A prominent 1994 study that lists the needs of sufficient wealth, access to resources, universal human rights, preservation of biodiversity and cultural diversity, and support for intellectual, artistic, and technological creativity, all of which require various amounts of energy to satisfy all needs while keeping ecosystems and resources intact, presents an optimal size of 1.5 to 2-billion people.
- Another 1994 study that estimated optimal population size according to the minimal land needed for food production (0.5 hectare per person) plus soil conservation, indicating an optimal size of 3-billion people.
- A 2010 study focused on providing a comfortable per-capita level of consumption at the current European average lifestyle, which suggests an optimal size of around 2-billion people.
Thus, it seems obvious—at least to reputable population experts—that the prime driver of all crises is the increasing size of our human superorganism, in conjunction with excessive consumption (beyond regeneration) of natural resources, particularly nonrenewable resources. It also seems that the principal long-term survival solution will require urgently addressing both population growth and consumption in seeking to create a sustainable existence on the only planet we humans can truly call “home”.
Should we choose not to address population-related issues, one obvious result will be an escalating number of climate-change migrants seeking refuge in all remaining habitable zones. The global media increasingly report migrant activities, especially the mounting numbers of distressed people exiting the global south, most headed to destinations in Europe or North America. Meanwhile, it should be noted that Asian nations, notably China, Japan, and South Korea, have policies that severely limit and discourage the entrance of immigrants, particularly non-Asians.
Most migrants are desperately fleeing untenable conditions precipitated by geo-political and social conflicts largely tethered to extreme climate-change related effects—heat, droughts, floods, and creeping desertification. Harsh climate-driven conditions are reducing water sources (including potable water) and the amount of arable land required for producing fresh food stocks, including vegetables, grains, and meat of domestic animals. The overall impact effectively diminishes the global supply of nutritional sustenance for large populations.
Moreover, ongoing melting of glaciers and ice sheets at both poles will continue contributing to rising sea levels, in turn displacing even more arable land. Millions of people will be forced to flee inundated low-lying continental coastlines and island habitats. Accumulating cataclysmic climate conditions will also continue aggravating social unrest, including violence and wars that further exacerbate living conditions. Thus, in coming decades massive populations of migrating refugees will be forced to flee catastrophic life-threatening conditions.
Of course, humans aren’t the only migrating species. The ongoing harmful effects of climate-change on ecosystems are also causing many flora and fauna species to slowly migrate and adapt to more hospitable regions. Increasingly, as climate conditions continue worsening, all lifeforms will probably migrate toward both poles, which at some future time could be ice free.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that squeezing oversized human populations into a declining number of habitable regions will create intolerable living conditions for many species. Smaller populations, however, may find it easier to survive, perhaps even sustainably. As discussed earlier, based on all scientifically derived projections about anticipated world conditions leading up to the 22nd Century, reputable population experts posit around two-billion world citizens or fewer (the global population around 1925), with everyone enjoying a modest but comfortable lifestyle, comparable to the average European today.
Overall, I believe smaller human populations will be more capable of creating sustainable living conditions—for all lifeforms. With smaller human populations spread away from cities and across the remaining livable areas of future Earth, it should be easier for humans to form symbiotic, reciprocal relationships among diverse groups. An overarching goal would be fostering allegiance and service to the Common Good, with all citizens granted equal rights and opportunities, and equitable distribution of essential goods and services. It is also imperative that all human goals be aligned with the needs of all flora and fauna species existing within the biosphere.
In considering how to effectively manage the controversial roles of population and consumption, we are challenged to give thoughtful deliberation regarding whether to reform or replace the entrenched neoliberal, capitalistic paradigm of perpetual material growth, the fundamental bane of our current predicament. Transitioning to a sustainable steady-state economic system will require radical changes in our thoughts and behaviors, which definitely presents a daunting challenge. Nevertheless, when armed with factual knowledge and appropriate skills, plus determination and perseverance, in good time society should be able to transition away from growth economics to a more stable and sustainable lifestyle.
A word of caution seems appropriate here. Throughout a potentially very challenging transitional process, humanity must be prepared to endure and survive a series of potentially shocking economic and ecological downturns, including devastating economic and ecological impacts. Unfortunately, it will probably take reaching a low point before most world citizens—and leaders—acknowledge that status-quo economic growth cannot continue. As Nate Hagens warns, we’re headed for a Great Simplification.
So, assuming humanity does collectively commit to implementing a masterplan for creating an eco-sustainable planet, how best to proceed? It seems that the first step requires promoting an eco-sustainable ethos based on a worldwide commitment to adopting a lower-consumption lifestyle; a goal made more feasible with a shrinking human presence. Although few eco-oriented groups address the role of population, the lower-lifestyle issue is being addressed head-on with an expanding degrowth movement. The overall degrowth goal is to gradually power down human consumption, eventually arriving at a sustainable, steady-state economy based on honoring the critical systemic role of Nature in sustaining life.
Currently, our unlimited-growth trajectory appears fixed on creating conditions leading to global collapse of society and the bio-ecosphere. If we’re serious about slowing down our onslaught, we can begin by adopting an attitude of gratitude. For instance, how about being grateful for having just “enough” stuff—and access to most of life’s needs. It also helps if we are well fortified with the moral will to minimize unessential wants.
Contemporary citizens living in the so-called “developed world”, especially we Americans, have been steadily spoiled by an ever-growing, energy-rich capitalistic system that has provided inordinate access to most resources, modern conveniences, services, and opportunities. Even so, there’s a prevailing sense we’re missing something essential in our fast-paced, increasingly polarized and insecure world.
Thanks to the hackneyed mythical meme known as “The American Dream” , we have developed very high expectations—for material things, achievements, and comfortable lifestyles. Sadly, many of us are not interested in making personal sacrifices that benefit the common good. And why should we? Because it requires reducing the size of our individual ecological carbon footprint, particularly regarding energy use for transportation and home heating/cooling, plus the purchase of desired but mostly unneeded items, and practically every aspect of life as we’ve come to expect it. Living a simpler, minimalistic lifestyle is just asking too much. Yet, it need not be so—if the concept were to become the basis of a new collectively shared eco-oriented belief system, whereby Nature (all that exists) is given the deep respect and appreciation it well deserves. But this is a topic for another in-depth study and discussion.
Regeneration of Biophysical Ecosystems
Because we are wholly dependent on Nature (the biosphere) for all survival needs, the main reason for reducing human population is to assure healthy ecosystems for future humans and all lifeforms. It’s worth mentioning that, in all healthy, well-balanced ecosystems, keystone species (or predators) are typically the fewest. But since we—as the dominant predator species—greatly outnumber other predators, the cascade of converging crises we’ve created is having a negative impact on all ecosystems. The long-term outcome is yet to be determined, but hoping for a sustainable future is looking more dire by the day.
At this point it’s important to emphasize that our ability to appropriate and dominate virtually all ecosystems within biomes is made possible by our numerous power-enabling technologies, which may be thought of as our “energy slaves”. Beginning with the First Industrial Revolution, a surplus of high-energy resources, notably carbon-based oil, gas, and coal, has greatly increased our capability to extract evermore natural resources for the purpose of powering society’s many needs and wants.
As mentioned earlier, the human footprint is an effective measurement in gaging the volume of resources consumed by an individual, groups, or the entire human population. The 2022 Global Footprint Network study estimates that, if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American, it would take the resources provided by five Earths to support the human population. (Overshoot is the term used by ecologists to explain the excessive demand for natural resources relative to their regeneration capacity.) Thus, when adding the rest of the world’s consumption, plus a projected increase of another 1-2 billion humans in coming decades to around 10-11 billion people, the direct result is a great expansion of humanity’s footprint.
For anyone who understands and accepts this reality, a substantial long-term reduction in the size of our human population to approximately two billion people will greatly aid in regenerating the biosphere. But only if we urgently adopt the types of humane measures with the potential to gradually reduce our numbers. Assuming humanity does heed the call for instituting essential long-term strategies and policies aimed at achieving a sustainable population, the following constructive measures and positive outcomes may be possible:
- Reduced and stabilized CO2 emissions, and also all harmful gases that collectively create the “greenhouse effect.”
- Cleaner air quality, by reducing and minimizing the global use of carbon-based energy in all areas of life, including production of plastic products; also, by limiting the number of forest fires due to human negligence and reckless behavior.
- Restoration of many human-modified land spaces—including forests, wilderness areas, prairies, and wetlands—to previous natural states and conditions.
- Rewilding habitats to limit the endangerment and extinction of many native flora and fauna species, including apex predators and keystone species, by expanding, protecting, conserving, and restoring wilderness ecosystems.
- Regeneration of farm soil to enhance conditions for growing high-quality nutritious food; also, replacement of manicured, high-maintenance grass lawns with native plants.
- Restoration of all water-filtering ecosystems, including wetlands, rivers and streams, and flood plains.
- Stabilization of aquifers by rationing water usage in arid regions, where smaller populations of people and native lifeforms might eventually coexist more sustainably (as paleolithic humans in the Americas survived prior to the arrival of Europeans).
- Cleanup of waterways (rivers and streams) and waterbodies (lakes, seas, and oceans), by removing accumulated trash, ceasing the dumping of waste materials into waterways and waterbodies, and restoring fisheries and habitats by allowing native flora and fauna species to flourish, including the removal of habitat-endangering dams on waterways.
- Reduction in international air travel and shipping by up to 75% or more, thereby lowering energy consumption and pollution of the atmosphere and seas.
- Setting aside up to 50% of global land space as wilderness areas, with limited human management and intrusion, including limits on logging, hunting, and extraction of minerals and carbon-based energy sources.
Benefits of Locally-Revised Commerce
A reduced global population will require adjustments that assist the development of sustainable habitats and localized economies. If and when a stabilized and sustainable supply-and-demand state is attained, the economic goal can shift to a socio-ecological ethos based on providing a sufficiency of goods and services, rather than the unsustainable excess created by a growth-oriented economy. Achieving a “sufficiency economy” might involve implementation of such measures as the following:
- Acknowledging that all natural resources used in creating essential human products are derived from Earth’s natural resources.
- Using limited natural resources wisely by adopting a steady-state economy, a cradle-to-grave system that reduces consumption and waste, reuses materials and goods as long as possible, recycles used materials into other useful goods, and restores damaged or overused natural resources, including soil, water, air, and as many flora and fauna species as possible.
- Creating a more benign economic model, a system that integrates the positive aspects of small-scale capitalism based on equality-and-equity socialism, and measures comprehensive economic viability based on Gross Domestic Happiness (GDH), in contrast to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which undervalues Nature as the source of all life-sustaining resources.
- Creating stable financial systems in which all currencies remain relatively stable in value, with minimal fluctuation, in contrast to capitalism’s widely fluctuating “boom-and-bust” cycles.
- Developing global, national, regional, state, and local economies and governments that are consistent with the principle of subsidiarity, and feature a preponderance of small-to-medium-sized businesses (including banks and credit unions), with a majority owned and operated by local citizen-workers committed to creating resilient, stable, and sustainable economic conditions.
- Encouraging the formation of worker-owned cooperative businesses, companies, and housing communities, with the goal of providing all citizens greater equality, equity, and ownership.
- Producing goods manufactured and delivered locally and regionally, within a moderate range for transporting goods and providing essential services.
- Promoting minimal construction and maintenance of infrastructure, thereby reducing energy use associated with extracting, processing, and transporting basic materials and products; plus reducing the amount of waste materials, potentially up to 75%, depending on population size and density.
- Repurposing a plethora of salvageable materials, furnishings, equipment, and empty structures, in turn automatically lowering energy consumption
As the last two proposed measures suggest, a major benefit of reducing population over several decades would be the repurposing of abandoned structures. The volume of contents in vacant buildings available for repurposing—equipment, furnishings, and a variety of reusable construction materials—could service most of society’s needs, while also drastically reducing energy consumption.
This obvious benefit is seldom mentioned, but as human populations decline over time, I suspect the inherent value of inherited materials will eventually become more widely acknowledged and very much appreciated. Assuming an eventual global human population of around two billion, it's possible that approximately 65-75% of structures and materials would be abandoned and salvageable. Indeed, salvaging could well become a significant, essential industry, providing many people service-oriented work opportunities.
Restoration of Basic Human Values and the Common Good
A smaller population provides more opportunities for fostering socially-conscious citizens. It’s common knowledge that people in small communities who live, work, and play together are more likely to exhibit such altruistic traits as tolerance, cooperation, collaboration, and compassion. Of course, such a wholesome scenario is possible only when a community is committed to fostering common-good values consistent with the principle of solidarity, in which case the following benefits seem highly possible:
- Reduced complexity and complications in all areas of life, as when coping with socio-cultural, religious, and political ideologies, excessive material abundance, and a barrage of options related to all aspects of life in our current growth-addicted economic system.
- A human population more committed to providing opportunities for learning information and skills that benefit both individuals and society, and supported by a public education system that services the needs of all communities’ citizens, from the beginning to end of life. (Ideally, K-12 education would function best having smaller community-based schools with fewer students and teacher-student ratios that allow more personal attention and interaction, including parental involvement.)
- More cradle-to-grave equality and equity, including rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation, with all working-age citizens receiving a living wage, having access to affordable housing, and receiving government-supported healthcare, education, and social security.
- Socio-culturally, women have the freedom to choose motherhood (one or two children) and/or pursue personal interests and careers that also enhance the common good.
- Parents electing to have no more than two children generally are able to give each child more loving attention. [Note: An average of one-child per couple may be needed for several decades—until the human population reaches the desired two-billion level, at which point an average of two children per couple should help maintain a stable and sustainable global population. Achieving such an ambitious goal will require democratic government policies using humane measures, both incentives (subsidies) and disincentives (taxes).]
- Improved nutritional health for more world citizens, largely because: 1) more arable land and healthier soil could be available for producing organically-grown nutritious food; 2) fewer corporately-farmed animals would be subjected to inhumane conditions; 3) increasing numbers of family farms could raise grass-fed, free-roaming animals for food; 4) an increase in home, community, and local gardens could grow vegetables organically; and 5) promotion and production of unhealthy processed foods would be greatly reduced.
- Other possible health benefits may include the development of 1) more local, state, and national governments providing accessible and affordable healthcare, 2) societal mores and norms that encourage life-long physical and recreational activity; 3) safer environments that reduce exposure to harmful substances, including dangerous chemicals; and 4) emphasizing preventive versus curative health measures.
- Reduction in communicable diseases due to fewer people living in close proximity to wild and domesticated animals, thereby reducing disease transference and the number of lethal pandemics and plagues.
- Reduction in international commerce and transportation, especially the widespread use of huge cargo ships and airplanes, thereby lessening major contributors that spread infectious diseases, pollution, dangerous chemicals, and invasive species.
- Development of a community-oriented social ethos that addresses the needs of both individuals and society, as expressed with the familiar creed “all for one, and one for all”.
- Democratic citizen participation and governance, which is easier to cultivate in smaller communities committed to the principle of one-person, one-vote, and the expectation that all citizens remain politically engaged.
- Public service supported via social programs that provide life-long public service opportunities for all able-bodied citizens, beginning upon graduation from high school with one or two years of public service in the military or civilian service organizations (e.g., in the U.S.— AmeriCorps, Green Corps, Peace Corps, et al); also retired able-bodied seniors could be incentivized to select phase-out retirement options when applicable, and/or work part-time, either in income-producing jobs or as volunteers with non-profit organizations.
- A greater sense of community is possible with smaller populations living in semi-dense areas designed for walking, biking, and public transportation connected with working, recreating, and obtaining goods and services.
- Reduced public infrastructure, hence less need for expensive construction, maintenance, and repair. [Note: reducing infrastructure might also involve limiting reusable buildings to four or five stories, and replacing non-porous pavement with native vegetation wherever possible, including in community parks and gardens, commercial areas, and residential properties.]
- Reduction in violent social behaviors and crime, which should be easier to achieve in smaller, tightknit communities where people know and interact socially with neighbors and community leaders, supported by a community ethos that engenders a sense of equality and equity for all citizens, as promoted through collective ownership of businesses, housing, and organizations.
- Implementation of worthwhile instruments designed to serve the global commons, such as: Universal Basic Income (a social welfare proposal that grants all citizens a guaranteed income, with no work requirement); ISO Standards (internationally agreed-upon standards based on a formula best ways for accomplishing something); Triple Bottom Line (a three-part accounting framework focused on social, environmental, and economic domains); Financial Speculation Taxes (a levy on certain financial transactions); Land/Resource Value Taxes (a property assessment method that considers only land value and related improvements, with built structures excluded); and Environmental Taxes and Subsidies (taxes on anything—energy, transportation, pollution, resource—that causes environmental harm, and subsidies that government pays to corporations and households for environmental purposes.
Admittedly, the above lists of social benefits might seem unrealistic, but I don’t think so. Assuming a majority of world citizens can be convinced that the current path of civilization is edging towards general socio-ecological collapse, I remain realistically hopeful. As we learn daily via media sources, various stages of societal collapse are growing more evident by the day, with several nations hovering near the brink of tipping points. Can it ever be too late to imagine a better world, a more humane future for all lifeforms? The window of opportunity is shrinking daily, and we cannot afford to dally.
Three Humane Strategies for Reducing Human Population
Assuming the information provided thus far makes sense, then a significant number of world citizens need to be convinced that a smaller world population could potentially create a more sustainable existence on this “third rock from the Sun.” So, what can humanity do to accomplish such an ambitious goal? Well, how about considering the following three humane measures?
- Initiate an extensive and comprehensive media campaign—via every possible venue—the purpose being to fully inform the general public about all aspects of the population issue e.g., the Population Media Center’s “Story Telling for the Public Good” , which uses radio and television stories to promote the benefits of smaller families.
- Provide family-planning information and advice to people of child-bearing ages, including: 1) information explaining the socio-cultural, economic, political, and religiously biased promotion of pronatalism; 2) the pros and cons of birthing and rearing children; and 3) the effective use of birth-control measures—condoms, IUDs, pills, vasectomies, and perhaps voluntary sterilization.
- Create policy incentives, such as tax deductions and child-care subsidies that encourage women to birth no more than one or two children, in conjunction with disincentives that discourage parents from having more than two children, for instance, by disallowing or reducing tax deductions and subsidies for women having more than two children. [Note: Having one child might qualify for a full reduction, a second child for half reduction, and no deductions for more than two children.]
Conclusion
All insights related to topics discussed thus far are based on what I’ve learned through considerable research, study, and thought, mostly since my official retirement from university teaching in 2007. Admittedly, most of the points and views offered may seem too idealistic, and unlikely to be adopted within the desired timeframe, preferably within the next two decades. But the sooner the better.
Accepting the long-term benefits of a smaller human population may be the only feasible way to sustain any semblance of “civilization” on a planet beset by multiple cascading crises and risks. I trust you agree that our irrational current trajectory of increasingly depleting essential natural resources and wrecking our planet is a recipe for eventual socio-ecological collapse. In failing to reduce our numbers, our monumental human predicament will be defined by Nature’s impartial responses. All lifeforms will struggle to survive a potentially dire existence of drastic limitations, including irreplaceable losses in habitable ecosystems, flora and fauna species, and essential natural resources.
For certain, convincing most world citizens to make some kinds of sacrifices will be a formidable challenge. Requesting global citizens—especially those living in high-energy-use nations to adopt frugal lifestyles based on reducing energy consumption and material possessions will face fierce resistance, at least initially. It will be even more challenging to convince persons of child-bearing age to have only one or two children.
Nevertheless, I’m confident that, when a large portion of humanity collectively comprehends the dead-end trajectory posed by the conventional perpetual-growth narrative, a tipping-point “ah-hah” realization will occur. However, this can happen only with the collective efforts of a fully informed body of socio-ecological activists deeply committed to educating as many people as possible.
The crucial messaging consists of two principal parts: first, to explain the depth and breadth of the mega-crisis the world is facing, and, second, how a smaller, well-informed human population could possibly exist collaboratively with the rest of Nature. Assuming we do succeed in spreading an honest, inspiring, and convincing narrative to an uninformed general public, future humans may willingly choose to live sustainably within what may likely be a damaged but resiliently regenerating biosphere.
In sum, if our collective goal is to save civilization and create a survivable existence on this precious, one-of-a-kind planet, radical solutions are desperately needed for intergenerational solidarity, including collective sacrifices. Despite ecomodernism and the highly improbable promises of techno-optimistic propagandists—notably, the far-fetched dreams of humans fleeing Earth to populate and plunder distant celestial bodies—it’s highly likely that Earth may well be the only planet suitable for supporting the evolved lifeforms that have inhabited and flourished on it for more than 300,000 years. Therefore, it behooves us, as a flawed yet awesomely evolved species, to think creatively, act boldly, and live wisely in striving to sustain as much of life as possible on the only planet we can justifiably claim as “our planet home”.
So may it be!
Note: “Fair use” limits length of excerpts used and requires documentation.
Copyright © 2023 Clifton Ware
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Clifton Ware, D.M., emeritus professor (voice), professional singer and author of four published books and two unpublished works, retired in 2007 from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities School of Music, where he taught for 37 years. Since retiring, as a self-described socio-ecological philosopher he has spent 15 years focusing on sustainability issues, in the process of acquiring an evidence-based, big-picture understanding of all principal societal and ecological systems, including the symbiotic interconnections and role of humans as an integral part of Nature. In 2013 he founded Citizens for Sustainability in St. Anthony Village, MN, produced Sustainability News + Views (2014-2019), a weekly newsletter featuring a variety of articles and a commentary, co-composed 13 Eco Songs with his wife, Bettye, organized Sustainability Forums, and performed eco-oriented programs and presentations for several organizations.
|
![[groups_small]](groups_small.gif)