I agree that a lower global population would solve many environmental problems but is fraught with issues.
In low income countries with minimal welfare provisions, children are seen as an alternative to a pension. Sons and daughters will look after you when you are old, so having many will be added security. Therefore female education and contraception provision should go hand in hand with increase in wealth and welfare.
Lowering population will lower GDP which is a principal measure of Governments success or failure. Countries with falling populations currently solve this by immigration which defeats the goal of a lower population. If governments concentrated on alternative measures of success, such as happiness measures per person this may help.
Other people telling couples how many children to have is an infringement of basic freedoms and morally wrong. So a programme of contraception education within local communities based on freedom of choice is essential.
Who decides what is the “correct” global population level? I see the “correct” level of population as a balance between life style ie consumption level and number of people. If everyone in the world adopted a western high consumption level then a low population would be obvious, but if everyone lived sustainable simple life styles a higher level of global population would be unproblematic. Proposing lower population levels could be viewed as culturally biased, ie rich westerners wishing to protect their high consumption life styles at the expense of other equally valid cultures. Dangerous ground to be avoided.
China adopted a one child per family policy which has been abandoned, so this is not the way to go. It lead to a sex bias of more sons than daughters and much resentment and suffering at the state intervention required to enforce it.
So to summarise, make contraception and the knowledge to use it correctly freely available, but do no more. Let people decide what is best for their lives, after all they are the true experts in this field.
Who decides what is the “correct” global population level? I see the “correct” level of population as a balance between life style ie consumption level and number of people. If everyone in the world adopted a western high consumption level then a low population would be obvious, but if everyone lived sustainable simple life styles a higher level of global population would be unproblematic. Proposing lower population levels could be viewed as culturally biased, ie rich westerners wishing to protect their high consumption life styles at the expense of other equally valid cultures. Dangerous ground to be avoided.
I think this raises some questions about the responsibility of developed countries to developing countries. A risk analysis of climate change impacts shows that it is plausible that developing countries suffer worse, even suffer their destruction, and that the global poor will suffer the most.
On a per capita basis, carbon consumption of individual lifestyles could be globally leveled. The result though would be an opportunity for developing countries to seek more carbon release to the atmosphere as part of their economic growth. For example, they might 3x their per capita GHG production, while we have to produce 30x less than we do now.
At the moment, populations in developing countries will suffer the burden of our historical carbon production. As that burden grows, their people will leave, if they can. From what I know of the popularity of refugees of various types in Europe, and in the US, developed countries will not welcome any sizable flow of migrants from any country. Sizable, meaning in the tens of millions.
This is the dangerous ground you mentioned. I think avoiding that dangerous ground requires that western countries curb their birth rates, drastically reduce their GHG production by a variety of means, and prepare to welcome a large influx of climate refugees. They also have to do what they can to proactively increase the consumption patterns of those in developing countries whose country is expected to survive climate changes.
I agree that a lower global population would solve many environmental problems but is fraught with issues.
In low income countries with minimal welfare provisions, children are seen as an alternative to a pension. Sons and daughters will look after you when you are old, so having many will be added security. Therefore female education and contraception provision should go hand in hand with increase in wealth and welfare.
Lowering population will lower GDP which is a principal measure of Governments success or failure. Countries with falling populations currently solve this by immigration which defeats the goal of a lower population. If governments concentrated on alternative measures of success, such as happiness measures per person this may help.
Other people telling couples how many children to have is an infringement of basic freedoms and morally wrong. So a programme of contraception education within local communities based on freedom of choice is essential.
Who decides what is the “correct” global population level? I see the “correct” level of population as a balance between life style ie consumption level and number of people. If everyone in the world adopted a western high consumption level then a low population would be obvious, but if everyone lived sustainable simple life styles a higher level of global population would be unproblematic. Proposing lower population levels could be viewed as culturally biased, ie rich westerners wishing to protect their high consumption life styles at the expense of other equally valid cultures. Dangerous ground to be avoided.
China adopted a one child per family policy which has been abandoned, so this is not the way to go. It lead to a sex bias of more sons than daughters and much resentment and suffering at the state intervention required to enforce it.
So to summarise, make contraception and the knowledge to use it correctly freely available, but do no more. Let people decide what is best for their lives, after all they are the true experts in this field.
I think this raises some questions about the responsibility of developed countries to developing countries. A risk analysis of climate change impacts shows that it is plausible that developing countries suffer worse, even suffer their destruction, and that the global poor will suffer the most.
On a per capita basis, carbon consumption of individual lifestyles could be globally leveled. The result though would be an opportunity for developing countries to seek more carbon release to the atmosphere as part of their economic growth. For example, they might 3x their per capita GHG production, while we have to produce 30x less than we do now.
At the moment, populations in developing countries will suffer the burden of our historical carbon production. As that burden grows, their people will leave, if they can. From what I know of the popularity of refugees of various types in Europe, and in the US, developed countries will not welcome any sizable flow of migrants from any country. Sizable, meaning in the tens of millions.
This is the dangerous ground you mentioned. I think avoiding that dangerous ground requires that western countries curb their birth rates, drastically reduce their GHG production by a variety of means, and prepare to welcome a large influx of climate refugees. They also have to do what they can to proactively increase the consumption patterns of those in developing countries whose country is expected to survive climate changes.