Jonathan Kennedy raises the tired spectre of “population control” advocates to argue that we should be happy that the world’s population may be undercounted by several billion (Are there billions more people on Earth than we thought? If so, it’s no bad thing, 31 May).
But while acknowledging that coercive measures to reduce population are a thing of the past, he does not mention that, even historically, the majority of these measures were voluntary and based on educating, empowering and providing contraceptive access to women and girls. This works because women choose lower fertility as soon as they are able to. Yet Kennedy ignores the millennia-old history of empires, churches and the military pushing for them to have more children.
He is correct that we should not fear the prospect of immigrants populating rich countries, but wrong that we need them to perform low-wage labour to save us from dire consequences. Alarmist fears of low birthrates are most often spread by the Elon Musks of the world, who have obvious reasons for cheering the cheap labour that comes with population growth. That they are being increasingly parroted by “liberal” outlets shows that we have lost sight of the lowest- hanging fruit towards taking care of our citizens – taxes that make the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share rather than pressures that push women to have babies they don’t want.
In a time of deepening climate change, species extinctions and pollution, and of soaring global inequality where people in high-fertility countries want, and deserve, materially secure lives, we should not be cheering the prospect of billions more humans to add to our already dire ecological and social predicaments.Kirsten StadePopulation Balance
An entire article about overpopulation and no mention of myriad other species that are being wiped out to accommodate us. I’m not sure that any other animals will be left alive when the population peaks “at about 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s”, or if the planet will still be inhabitable.Ron BinghamMuswell Hill, London
Jonathan Kennedy builds on Isaac Asimov’s “bathroom metaphor” to demonstrate the dangers of populist leaders’ hostility to immigration. Figuratively speaking, he says they want to keep one bathroom for themselves and force everyone else to share the other one, but that this comes with risks: “Perhaps the other toilet becomes blocked and the whole flat is inundated with raw sewage.” Right. But this is also what inevitably happens when a limited number of bathrooms are shared with an ever-increasing number of people, even if they are shared equally.
We must absolutely become better at sharing resources, but this won’t enable infinite growth on a finite planet. There is nothing “alarmist” about acknowledging that the Earth has limits. In fact, at our current population size, we’ve already breachedclose to seven out of ninecritical planetary boundaries.
It’s good to see Kennedy acknowledge that today’s population movement focuses on women’s empowerment: “Educating women and giving them control over their lives has proved remarkably effective at reducing fertility rates.” Precisely, not to mention that empowering women is morally essential in its own right. So if we can improve lives and at the same time ensure that there are enough “bathrooms” for everyone to be comfortable and to avoid disasters, why wouldn’t we?
Small changes in fertility rates have major impacts on future population sizes. While we are on track for a peak of over 10 billion, the UN’s projectionsalso showthat if every other woman had one more child than currently expected, our global population would soar to 14.4 billion by 2100, while if every other woman had one fewer child than expected, our global population would decline to 7 billion by 2100. One of these is a lot more compatible with a happy, healthy planet than the other.Olivia NaterPopulation Connection
Jonathan Kennedy acknowledges that current concerns about overpopulation relate to “climate change, resource depletion and biodiversity loss”, but then bewilderingly fails to address any of these issues. An implied cornucopian perspective is taken – these issues do not need to be addressed as either humankind’s ingenuity will sort them out or humankind at least will not suffer too much from their effects (with no regard paid to the non-human species that we inhabit the planet with). With humankind currentlytransgressing at least six of nine planetary boundaries, the cornucopian perspective is a dangerous one and needs to be challenged wherever encountered. Overpopulation needs to be acknowledged as a major challenge to bringing human impacts on our world back within sustainable boundaries.Shane DelphineMelbourne, Australia
Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Pleaseemailus your letter and it will be considered for publication in ourletterssection.