Too Many People?

When trying to make sense of the world population picture, there are lies, damn lies, and there are global statistics. On one hand, the numbers "prove" that the world’s burgeoning population is outstripping the Earth’s carrying capacity, and that massive starvation is likely as the sheer weight of too many people overwhelms the ability of the environment to withstand the impact of human growth.

On the other hand, some would argue that the numbers "prove" that population growth is not the problem—because in some places, and in some eras, rapid population growth and prosperity have occurred simultaneously. The Nether-lands or Japan are usually touted as examples of countries with dense populations and healthy economies.

The relationship between population and poverty, and between the number of people in the world and their effects on the environment, isn’t as simple as the global statistics might indicate. Drought, war, corruption, inequitable distribution of power and wealth—all can be more devastating to the Earth and to people’s well-being than population growth per se.

But the unavoidable reality is that where there is severe poverty, where people are malnourished and re-sources are stretched thin, adding more people makes the suffering worse. Despite considerable increases in food production over the last three decades, there are more poor people in the world than ever before. Despite a global abundance of food, many people cannot afford enough to eat. And where survival competes with protecting the environment, increasing the number of people will only add to degradation of the land.

When it comes to the impact on the environment, however, all people are definitely not created equal. A child born in the United States will have 30 times the impact on the Earth than one born in India. Or to look at it another way, the average American uses as much energy as 12 Chinese, 147 Bangla-deshis, or 422 Ethiopians. Because of this voracious consumption, it could be argued that the world’s survival is most threatened by the "overpopulation" of the industrialized countries. Much as Americans might prefer to see the problem as involving people "over there," part of an effective response must be changes in our consumptive lifestyle.

Population growth, in many ways, is more a symptom of poverty than a cause, and "population control" policies are no substitute for economic and social justice. In fact, family planning is only fourth on the list of the factors most critical to determining fertility. Educating and empowering girls and women is the most effective way to reduce the number of children born to each family. Increasing income and economic opportunities is next, followed by the reduction of infant mortality (when children live longer, families have less children).

But in the context of broader social and economic development and an emphasis on women’s health and welfare, access to family planning is an essential ingredient in the mix of responses. The Catholic Church—along with the U.S. government, in the Reagan/Bush era—has vigorously obstructed family planning efforts. While its opposition is rooted in a laudable stand against the 50 million abortions that are performed each year, the church’s unbending crusade against all family planning measures has had a destructive effect in much of the world.

But one would be mistaken to believe that better access to contraceptives will solve the problem. In reality, many poor people in developing countries have big families because they want them. As the authors of this special issue point out, the birth of a child isn’t seen as just another mouth to feed—and certainly isn’t thought of as a drain on limited natural and material resources. Rather, children represent wealth—another source of family income in eight or nine years and social security in old age. Until that social and cultural fact is recognized, efforts at "family planning" will remain an exercise in futility.

In the midst of the complexities, one thing is clear: The issues are inextricably tied together in a seamless whole. Population cannot be treated in isolation from the consumption levels of the industrialized world and the inequitable distribution of wealth and power within and between poor and rich countries. Sustainable development must recognize the limits of growth and must include social and environmental justice, with priority attention to the health, education, and well-being of women.

Slowing the growth of population won’t of itself reduce poverty or the degrading of the Earth, but it will make it easier to meet the needs of people and protect the environment—if the will exists, and if we finally recognize our indivisibility as children of God.

As Adlai Stevenson said in his final speech, "We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil; all committed for our safety to its security and peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and the love we give our fragile craft, and, I may say, each other."