The failings of population control environmentalism

There has been a lot of talk recently -- some unsavory -- regarding the issues of population and sustainability. Many come from the standpoint that in order to have the greatest impact on sustainability, you must personally ensure you contribute zero or negative population growth. Anyone who is serious about sustainability, they claim, is an utter hypocrite if they don’t advocate population control or (gasp!) have more than the 2.1 children per couple necessary for population growth.

Sustainability heroines Miranda Edel and Sharon Astyk have come under ruthless attack from “holier-than-thou environmentalists” claiming that these women have had more than their “fair share” of children. Some commenters at the LATOC Forum advocate authoritarian population measures as extreme as culling our neighbors. Now, assuming we can look past the emotional response to these positions, the argument suffers from a number of logical failures.

First off, we don’t have a global population problem -- we have a consumption problem. A very large population of the planet lives unsustainably, and as a result we face problems of accumulated pollution and global warming. While it’s true that one possible solution to easing these environmental pressures is global population reduction, it is not the only solution and it would only work under very specific conditions (e.g. consider that the U.S., comprising 4% of the world’s population, uses ~25% of the world’s resources).
Research has shown quite clearly that organic farming and permaculture methods could feed the current world population and more. Granted, this won’t happen in any foreseeable future, but that brings me to my next point.

If you were to advocate a system of population control, why on earth would you want to start by reducing the number of people with sustainability skills? People such as Miranda and Sharon, who are developing the ability to yield zero (or even negative!) net impact on the Earth, will pass these skills down to their children. Not only that, but Miranda and her children will help (and are helping) others reduce their environmental impacts. So from a purely environmental logic point of view, criticizing a responsible environmentalist for having five children is illogical.
An overt illustration: Joe the permaculturist uses 100 units of energy annually contrasted to the national average of 200 units. His 5 children also uses 100 units of energy. However, they each teach just 3 people the basics of sustainability.
5 kids x 100 units = 500 units
15 people x -100 units = -1500 units
Net increase in energy = -1000 units
So by allowing Joe’s progeny to live (as if you had a choice), you enabled a net energy savings of 1000% that you would not otherwise have.

Still another logical failing in the population control argument: if your plan for environmental reform requires a reduction of the current population, by remaining alive you become a hypocrite. Seriously -- think about it. The most sustainable “holier-than-thou environmentalist” is far more toxic to the planet than the most wasteful dead person. And no, I’m not advocating that such people remove themselves, just pointing on the logical failing.
Then there is the question of what you’re trying to preserve by your actions. It’s similar to the response to studies that trees in temperate climates can emit carbon dioxide rather than absorb it, further adding to global warming. The solution to global warming is not, then, to plant fewer forests because that’s the very thing we’re trying to preserve! Similarly, if what you want to preserve is the human species, the answer is not killing off humans -- the answer is killing lifestyles.

Perhaps the biggest failing for population control advocates is that there’s nothing they can do about it -- they’re choosing to waste their time railing against reproducing environmentalists rather than actually doing something about sustainability. When we start to feel in earnest the impacts of Peak Oil, global warming, pollution, or general economic collapse, people will lose their lives. Whether it’s due to war, famine, drought, hurricanes or anything else, people die -- but there’s not much anyone can do about it one way or the other. The only thing any of us can do is learn to live sustainably and self-sufficiently in order to survive -- because there must be survivors. Survivors who will know the joy of children and spread the knowledge of how to live in such a way that humanity can avoid a repeat of this situation.

One final point: I do think birth control is a great thing, as it enables a couple to plan for (or prevent) a family. I can’t fault anyone for wanting to have children (especially when they are sustainable folk!) nor can I criticize those who choose to not have kids. We have seen the unexpected consequences of policies aimed at population control, such as in China where there are now more than 60 million surplus angry single men. On the other hand, I have a big problem with policies that require people to procreate with reckless abandon (e.g. the Catholic church) or that restrict people’s rights to birth control. Government policy has no place in the bedroom in any form.

So to my fellow environmentalists, Peak Oilers, permaculturists, and survivalists of all sorts – let’s focus on exploring survival solutions that don’t include obsessing over other people’s right to survival. Spread the message of sustainability and let’s work on making parasitic lifestyles extinct.