De-populate or perish

If we are 99.9 per cent confident that voluntary contraception will achieve sufficient population decrease within, say, 30 years - and remember, we are talking about reducing the world’s population by two-thirds; we are NOT talking about zero-population growth, AND if we believe the rich and middle-income countries will voluntarily reduce their demands for bioresources to a sustainable level (about the standard of living of the average present-day Syrian), then voluntary contraception is the way to go.

If not, the survival of all life on earth must have absolute priority over human constructs of moral and ethical behaviour.

Practical objections to involuntary contraception

How can you achieve involuntary contraception? By government edict? The Chinese government instituted a one-child policy in 1979. The policy is regarded as repugnant by many people both inside and outside China, and it is said to have led to unacceptable consequences, such as killing female children, and forced late-term abortions. In any case, the policy is now referred to as the “1.5-child policy”, and the Chinese population is continuing to increase, albeit at a slower rate than that of most other emerging economies.

To be effective, such a government-mandated policy requires a political system that is free from corruption, has strong central control, and is not subject to judicial review. It is difficult to see how a one-child policy could stand against appeals to constitutional rights in countries such as USA and Australia.

The alternative to mandatory, involuntary contraception is covert biological sterilisation, and this is where moral objectors become most vociferous. But if you are persuaded that Planet Earth cannot support the projected population living at a reasonable standard of consumption, you must face the alternative,

De-populate or perish

A word about politicians: I do not believe senior politicians in the developed-country governments are either innumerate or unable to recognise the impossibility of having both population growth and economic growth. This does not mean most politicians necessarily accept the “strong” version of the argument, namely that the world’s population must be reduced to about 2 billion, but I suspect many of them accept the “weak” version, namely, that supply and demand for bioresources must be brought into balance.

Unfortunately, politicians are not leaders when it comes to contentious issues; they sniff the mood of the electorate for the scent of political advantage, and sail downwind. At present, politicians the world over are not even saying we must forego economic growth, and they are supported by the Stern Report, the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Garnaud, inter al. These all say we can have economic growth provided we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even the Green political parties are not prepared to say, “We must have negative economic growth and we must drastically reduce the human population!”

A final conclusion

Whatever good things human beings may have done to benefit our own species, we have done nothing that has benefited either the Planet or any other species - although some good people have done some things to try to ameliorate the bad things others have done.

It is a sobering and discomforting thought, but each and every one of us must be entered as a liability in the books of the Planet. Every single person, with the possible exception of desert Aborigines and other hunter/gatherers, departs this life leaving the Planet a bit poorer than when they arrived on it.