ALEEEEEEERTE! we have just crossed the fateful bar of 8 billion humans on earth! PANIC TO BOOOOORD! WE ARE TOO MANY! WE’LL ALL DIEIIIIIIIIIR!
OK then one, yes we are all going to die it is an undeniable fact. Two, calm down damn you fuck me the female dog when you’re like that.
Eight billion people is a lot, no doubt about it. But we quickly put everything on the back of this demographic growth when we talk about climate change. In reality it is a little more complex. First of all, let’s do a little reminder: we were one billion in 1800 and between 1950 and 2019 the world population has simply tripled. But if population growth is a central subject, it does not necessarily arise in the right terms. That’s why in this top we say the terms.
1. A brief update on Malthus, Paul Erlich and the fathers of the anti-natalist theory
Thomas Malthus is a smart guy who wrote a fairly fundamental text in the 18th century, Essay on the principle of population. In this book he makes a very simple observation: “the multiplying power of population is infinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce the subsistence of man”. A rather avant-garde reasoning which will find some more contemporary echoes in the Meadows report in 1972 on the limits of growth.
Malthus’ mistake, however, was to have completely overlooked modern agriculture (which was still in its infancy) which would make it possible to feed the greatest number. In any case, Malthusian thought made progress (often wrongly and through) until the publication of the book by the biologist Paul Ehrlich in 68 La bombe P in which he defends an anti-natalist policy. According to him, if the planet continues this same population growth, we would reach 60 million billion within 9 centuries (personally I already don’t know what I’m going to do next Saturday so in 9 centuries…).
2. Population won’t grow forever
OK for two centuries our population has not stopped growing (1 billion in 1800, 2.5 billion in 1950) but no offense to Ehrlich (see the point above) it is not likely to stay like this forever.
Among demographers, we are rather counting on three scenarios:
The most extreme assumes that we will reach a peak of 15 billion humans in 2100, if access to care continues to gain ground and maintaining the current rate of reproduction. The UN rather expects a peak in 2050 followed by a decline, while others expect a sharp drop in fertility that would reduce the population to 4 billion by 2100.
In all cases, there is a time when demography stabilizes and then decreases. In other words, the population always ends up regulating itself and yes it does not happen in very good conditions (pandemics, famines, wars, nothing like to put population growth back in the nails, YAY) .
3. Birth control never did any good
The most emblematic example is of course that of China and the one-child policy which was conducted from 1979 to 2015 in the country. Not only has this demographic authoritarianism caused a lot of damage: forced sterilizations, abandonment or even selective abortions in order to avoid having a girl. On this last point, it even had serious consequences because there are now fewer girls than boys in China. Currently there are 1.7 children per woman in China and a massive aging of the population.
4. The countries most affected by overpopulation are also those with the lowest carbon footprint
We are going to do a very simple calculation: to contain the effects of climate change it is estimated that every human on the planet can have a footprint of 2 tonnes of carbon equivalent (in France we are at 10 tons, in Niger at 100 kilos). However, contrary to popular belief, there is no link between a country’s level of emissions and its demography (for example China and India which have more or less the same population, yet India emits 4 times less than China).
5. Demographics change over a very long time scale, but when it comes to climate change, we should rather take the derche
The inertia of demography renders its questioning somewhat obsolete. The stakes of climate change are such that we have barely a few years left to rectify the situation and hope to have a still habitable planet by the end of the century. So even if we limited the number of births worldwide now (a slightly totalitarian act you will agree) demographic changes on a global scale would only be felt in several decades and in small proportions.
On the other hand, one thing is certain: at the rate we are going, part of the planetary zone is already condemned by long-lasting heat waves, a coastline eroded by rising waters and repeated climatic disasters. The growth of the population is therefore the prospect of a growth in the victims of climate change and climate refugees (given the inhuman treatment that we already reserve for refugees at the present time, we can doubt the quality of the welcome they will receive in a few decades).
6. Population management recommendations cannot be the same for all countries
This is why the question is so complex and why it cannot be brushed aside so roughly. In particular, one key element must be taken into account: population growth is linked to poverty.
The more a country develops (with the education of girls and their access to studies in particular), the more quickly it will make its demographic transition (understand: the more one studies the less one has kids). It is thus noted that most industrialized countries have a low birth rate (below the population replacement threshold) and will therefore be exposed to a demographic decline.
7. Population growth should not be seen so much as an explosion in the birth rate but rather as a drop in mortality
And that is good news. Basically, if there are more of us, it’s not so much that we have more children than before, it’s above all that they die less, that mothers die less, that we have medication (Doliprane frankly c is cool for the hangover) and super EHPAD (fake) to live old.
A recent study showed that a child born today in France should be able to live 90 to 93 years. We can also estimate that the more we are numerous, the more brains we have to find solutions precisely concerning the fact that we are more numerous. These are hypotheses that sometimes tend towards technological solutionism and geo-engineering, but this argument deserves to be posed.
In short, paradoxically, population growth is the illustration of the progress of science, the decline in poverty and the overall enrichment of the inhabitants of the planet. And that’s the rub…
8. It’s not so much demographics that are the problem as our lifestyles
HELLO, MY NAME IS JEAN-FONCE DES PORTOUVERTES.
Yes well you will have understood it is a little bit the whole subject of this top. We’re not here to say that 8 billion isn’t a lot, we’re easy bro. But if we question the anxiety of overpopulation a little, it is also because the problem does not seem to arise in such a simplistic way. The problem being more of the order of our current lifestyles which emit far too many greenhouse gases (nothing to do with the digestive problems of deer).
9. The anxiety of overpopulation can quickly lead us down the path of the most abject nationalism
Be careful, I’m not saying that talking about overpopulation makes us a big fascist. I’m just saying that the big fachos really like to talk about overpopulation, especially when it’s not at home. Yes friends, if you want to be a good nationalist, you have to give priority to births in your own area rather than welcoming immigrants, a little common sense!
This is why Zemmour criticized abortion in France because this dramatic act caused us to miss out on a “mini-baby-boom” highly beneficial for our beautiful country. On the other hand, when it comes to welcoming immigrants, it’s NO WAAAAAY as evidenced by this delicious quote “The demographic crisis leads us either to an Islamic republic or to a civil war”. And what about Victor Orban who also leads a pro-natalist policy in Hungary with the aim of fighting against immigration?
In short, far-right theories around the world do not hesitate to want to be pro-natalist for their country and very de-natalist for others whenever they have the idea of coming to our country to pollute as much as we do. Do not push say so.
10. Today, we could feed 12 billion people on the planet
AH. Interesting. But how is it that 10% of the world’s population does not have enough to eat? I give it to you in thousand it is because of a (very) bad distribution of wealth. Always this dark story of inequality that comes back to the carpet, huh.
In any case, if the resources of the planet are indeed limited, they could be better distributed at the present time. In short, it would be nice if the 10% of the richest on the planet, who consume 20 times more energy than the 10% of the poorest, leave us a little something to eat. Finally if not YOU HAVE TO SAY IT IF WE ARE IN FACT?