Our Habitable Capacity II
How to prevent our increasing population from exceeding our declining habitable capacity
The effects of the climate crisis have a “baked in” momentum causing a decline in Earth’s habitable capacity. The billions spent on curbing greenhouse gases is almost exclusively aimed at keeping climate change from being out of control in the last half of this century and the next. Our track record of doing this is poor at best.
Steps like a 55-mph speed limit and plane tickets being partially based on the combined weight of the passenger and their luggage, which might have some effect in five to ten years, are just not going to happen. Thus, logically, the only way to answer the question of how to avoid exceeding Earth’s habitable capacity is to begin to reduce the rate of growth of our population, which for this year is 1.09%. Prior to suggesting how this might be done, we need to review some history.
History of “overpopulation”
In 1960 the world’s population was 3.03 billion, but increased to 4.46 billion in 1980, a 47% increase. The world was in a crisis. If this increase had continued at the same rate, in 2000 the population would have been 6.56 billion and in 2020, 9.64 billion. At 4% more and to the end of 2022, we would have 10 billion compared to 8 billion.
Given the limited access to resources and technology, in the ’60s and ’70s this severe problem was called “overpopulation” and was widely discussed, even in college courses. At least two episodes of the original Star Trek were on this topic. That problem was “solved” by the heavy use of new and more effective contraceptives including the pill. However, use of contraception was deemed to be too coercive, especially for black and brown people. (In China from 1980 to 2015, contraceptive use was very coercive, but the world couldn’t have cared less.) As a result, this term of “overpopulation” was tainted with racism.
Thus, for the past 30 years in the mainstream media, I have not read an article, watched a TV segment, or listened to a radio segment on the subject of overpopulation. The IPCC report in August 2021 only barely “hinted” at it.
Given this history, attempts at trying to reduce the rate of growth of the world’s population must be strictly voluntary and uniformly applied to all the peoples of the world. If an attempt needs to be “tested” first, this should be done in a developed country, not a developing one to avoid being labeled as “racism.”
Reducing average family size
Melinda Gates in a TED talk in 2020 talked about how for the past 250 years, as a natural part of the development process, the average size of families was reduced. Also, the slow process of this in Sub-Saharan Africa and in parts of South Asia can be enhanced by the free and reliable distribution of contraceptives on request.
Unfortunately, in the U.S., the country with the most resources to do this, reactionary forces lead by the Supreme Court will likely in a few years allow some states restrict the use of contraceptives.
Thus, what has worked in the past will likely continue to be too slow in developing regions, and the decline in habitable capacity could lead to millions being at risk in these regions.
We need to be open to new ideas which may seem unrealistic at first. In this light, the peoples of the world over time have almost completely rejected the former common practice of polygamy, reduced prostitution, and advanced women’s rights in ways which in the past would have seemed unrealistic.
What needs to change now is the following still current assumption:
A married couple has the right to have as many children as they want, possibly subject to one or more of the following; tradition, religion, their desire, what they can afford, or what government will partly support.
To avoid a drastic reduction in habitable capacity, this needs to be replaced by:
A married couple has the right to have at most two children, their replacement with in the population. Having additional children should be considered irresponsible because of the suffering and death of future generations.
Developed countries and young people should lead the way
An additional reason this needs to be done first in developed countries is the following: If we consider resources such as water, refrigerant, greenhouse gases, air pollution, and solid waste, their production by the average person in a developed country is manyfold higher than that of the average person in a developing country.
For a mild example, Habitat for Humanity is currently in sad shape in the U.S. The U.S. has a deficit in the millions of safe affordable housing for young families, poor people, homeless, and legal immigrants such as Haitians, Afghans, and Ukrainians, to say nothing about the other kind of immigrants. As a result, rents and the cost of all housing is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Although the 21% increase in population in the U.S. from 2007 through 2022 is not the only reason for this situation, it is significant.
Rephrasing what we must do:
Please, at most 2 children so most of their children will not die before having their own children.
Young people are frustrated in not being able to do anything about the dire prospects of the climate crisis. Here is something they can do; plan to limit the size of their families.
What could be the results of a successful campaign for “Please at Most 2?”
Although demographers will need to tell us, there is a likelihood the rate of increase in population will decline to zero much sooner than forecast to happen in 2100 with a population of 10.2 billion. We may be able to significantly reduce the amount of the world’s population exceeding habitable capacity.
Specifically, the world’s population might peak at 9 billion or 9.5 billion around 2050 and start slowly decreasing thereafter. The reason for this is due to some couples having no children or one child.
If we do not do something, much of the world, between plus or minus 15 degrees latitude, could look like the current Sri Lanka or Haiti by 2050 if not by 2040.
