Enemies of the People

When the good Dr. Stockman in Henrik Ibsen’s An Enemy of the People tries to warn the people of his town that their river is dangerously polluted, he becomes, of course, the eponymous enemy of the very people he is trying to protect. Ibsen, like many other early observers of the devastation brought about by industrialization and the exploitation of the natural environment for profit, understood that an inevitable adjunct of this planet-wide revolution was a “silent majority”. The phrase, (in spite of its having been co-opted by a Nixon administration under siege in the 1970s), is invaluable for its insight into the most profound psychological underpinning of the profit system—denial.

What, after all, do all of the plagues of our time have in common? The automobile, indoor and outdoor air pollution, water pollution, famine, epidemic disease, deforestation, over-fishing of the oceans and rivers, the rapid extinction of species, skyscrapers, jet travel, casual waste of natural resources, even electric light all pose a threat to our very existence on the planet. While on the one hand, we are “treated” to endless jeremiads about where we are headed, there seems to be no plausible solution to the insidious trend. Windmills, nuclear power plants, recycling old newspapers, electric cars and zoos for near-extinct species all seem laughably (or tragically) incapable of making a significant difference. Those who study and understand the full scope of the problems we now face will confess that it is probably already too late to avoid some cataclysmic event that will forever alter our lives on Earth.

Yet, in spite of the gravity of what we are all now facing, there is a conspiracy of silence on its root cause. What is almost never mentioned in the midst of the constant hand-wringing and hair-pulling exhortations in the media and the scholarly journals is the underlying problem—there are just too many people on the planet.[1]

The subject of population growth has a long political as well as scientific history. There was a time when Malthusians, that is, adherents of Thomas Malthus’ ideas about population, were looked upon as reactionary. Left wingers of just about every shade were distinguished by their faith in scientific solutions to all of mankind’s problems. Technology would save us. Population grows geometrically Malthus pointed out, while resources grow mathematically. The technocrats made claim to having defied Malthus’ gloomy forecasts when they devised methods to not only feed existing populations but, as a result of the new regimens they put in place, allow global population to grow by a third. In the process, the ammonium nitrates so liberally applied to the soil have created a huge additional hazard to life on the planet. All indications are that we have not yet seen the end of population growth, that by 2050, we will have three billion more human beings to feed.

What should now be obvious is that Earth simply cannot accommodate such large numbers. Where once—in spite of the usual opposition from the Catholic Church and other institutions that thrive on teeming surpluses of poor people—population control and family planning were corollaries to any program aimed at improving the lot of our species, the subject has become taboo. In fact, declining population is now seen as an economic threat in many advanced nations faced with the prospect of fewer workers to fund social programs for aging citizens. In a global context, the notable exception of China’s so-called one birth policy can be seen as an anomaly. Moreover, the country’s recent surge of affluence has rendered the policy somewhat irrelevant since, as has long been obvious, one effective cure for excess population is affluence. Rich peoples (barring some perceived threat to their group’s existence) don’t have time for babies.

The era in which we were treated to programs for poor nations which included everything from condoms to IUDs to voluntary sterilization ended for a variety of reasons. Reagan era opposition to essentially all family planning regimens led the way, and most of what was then done to remove governmental support from family planning efforts is still in place. The so-called right to life faction, ostensibly opposed to abortion, turned out, not surprisingly, to be disingenuously opposed to all forms of birth control as well. Family planning was portrayed as an insidious cover for advocacy of abortion. In some minority communities here in the United States but in other areas of the world as well family planning was portrayed as a veiled form of genocide for the poor. Population control groups not only lost government funding, they were deemed out of touch with technological changes such as improved fertilizers and genetically modified organisms that would supposedly allow for almost unlimited population growth. In their institutional literature and mission statements, great care is now taken by organizations like the United Nations and other groups with global outreach to emphasize free choice. It has become politically incorrect, even misogynistic, to present a public face that would openly advocate for anything resembling a rigorous program of population control.

The doomsayers of the 1960s who predicted world-wide famine within just a few decades were obviously proven wrong; the population time-bomb never exploded; Malthus was proven wrong once again. Fertilizers and scientifically modified seed could and did feed larger and larger populations. Not included in the calculation, however, was the environmental cost of the new agricultural regimen. It is a cost not measured alone in direct harm to land and water. The parallel phenomena of extinction and chemically induced mutations of still extant species offer a clear warning that, like other species that have been artificially induced to rapidly expand their populations, humans are in danger of becoming dangerous pests, the most dangerous the planet has ever seen.

[1] There are no doubt some on both the right and the left who will argue that we must acknowledge an even deeper underlying problem such as the inequities of capitalism or a lack of spiritual enlightenment. I would argue here that unless the problem of overpopulation is addressed soon, its devastating impact on the health of the planet will render political and religious concerns moot.