Global birth rates are spiralling. How can we solve a problem where ethics and sustainability collide?

Controlling population might sound easy, but would you give up your right to have children? Giles Crosse searches for another answer.

‘According to the 2008 UN Population Prospects, published in March 2009, the world population is projected to reach 7 billion early in 2012, up from the current 6.8 billion, and surpass 9 billion people by 2050.’ This is stone cold fact, says the Population and Sustainability Network (PSN).

It’s worrying. “The planet cannot afford a larger population, we’re already using the natural resources of more than one planet, even with energy efficiency we cannot hope to have a planet of consumers, climate change will be the ultimate controller,” says Peter Bunyard, founding science editor of the The Ecologist and Advisor to Our Future Planet.

So what’s the solution? It seems there is no easy answer, and the debate is made more complex by the sheer volume of opinions, desires and rights which need to be addressed.

“The main difficulty with population control is the horrendous mistakes which have been made in the past,” reveals Karen Newman, Coordinator of the PSN. “The family planning programmes in China and some of the Indian programmes meant that it became an issue which people wanted to shove under the carpet. People used to talk a lot about it and now don’t, plus of course you have the anti-abortion element in the States which is challenging.”

The ethics aren’t monopolised by zealous Westerners in the US either. “If we’re lucky we can eventually stabilise population levels around about the 9.2 billion mark, but we must think now about what to change in order to achieve this.” continues Newman.

“We can’t repeat history, you may ask is birth control ethical? But I think the more pertinent question should be whether it’s ethical to deny family planning or contraception to 200 million people in poorer parts of the world. That’s the true ethical debate rather than previously ill advised programmes in the East.” This is especially thought-provoking given limited healthcare and associated death rates in such parts of the world.

Given population is rising, steps will be needed to mitigate competition and conflict for resources. “Fairer distribution, and recognition that the entire world of humans can’t consume like we do,” suggests Bunyard, seeking potential solutions. “Some schemes such as contraction and convergence of global commons, plus worldwide investment and provision of renewable resources is essential.”

Coupling compatible drivers together is another top way to address both concerns. “We need to have a much more holistic approach whereby budgets aren’t earmarked in the short term to achieve something only for the money to drop out a little later on.” says Newman.

“A great example is deforestation and population. You suffer less deforestation if you control population, so there’s a duality to that benefit immediately. Equally look at something like marine fisheries.”

“There’s an example of a village in the Philippines which realised it was over fishing its stock, so family planning was brought in alongside measures to protect the fisheries, and there you see how we can begin to develop some kind of balance. Competition for resources will probably always be there but it’s about developing some flexibility and attempting to put in place joined up thinking between many sustainable measures.”

It’s worth remembering the developing world is not responsible for many climate change drivers, but it is where all kinds of effects of future climate change can be mitigated, by decreasing birth rates and providing such evidence of intelligent sustainability.

Monetary methods

As ever, the cash needs to be there for family planning and sexual health education. Here too there are challenges. “The global funds are great, but they could probably benefit from trying to deal in more local measures wherever possible, we can have population stabilisation in terms of the UN predicted median rates, but there needs to be an awareness of the problems.” explains Newman.

“For example Kenya was a leading light in the way it had improved the literacy of the population and done good work, but now family planning has dropped off the radar and so the population rate is beginning to spiral again.”

She goes on to explain it’s also about competition for cash. “There has been a tricky balance with HIV/AIDS. I wouldn’t for a moment propose these are unworthy programmes, but that has taken money which otherwise would have gone into the family planning pot.”

“Money has shifted in Sub-Saharan Africa in this way and a third of the global population live within sea level, 13 of the 20 largest cities are exposed to climate change, we are looking at potential mass migration and moving millions of people away from the sea. So you can’t afford to let family planning slip off the net if we don’t want to be fighting for those resources.”

Bunyard agrees, pointing to awareness and information alongside resources for free abortions combined with effective medical advice. Birth control can’t be ethically enforced, it has to be understood.

Joining the dots

As ever, further reaching steps must also come into play. The UK Department for International Development (DFID) reckons without regulation, illegal over fishing will lead to the demise of small-scale African fisheries, upon which tens of thousands depend for their livelihood.

‘The problem costs African countries over £600 million ($1bn) a year, and devastates local economies which rely on the fishing trade,’ DFID estimates. ‘The total cost to the world economy of illegal fishing and poor management of marine stocks is an estimated £60bn ($100bn) every year.’

Yet world governments seem least able, or willing, to push through third world legislation. But this would protect local food and local jobs, which lead to education, routes out of poverty, wider healthcare and an opportunity for planetary sustainability.

Bunyard reckons it’s hard to predict the consequences or long term impacts of climate change in terms of population, but suspects worldwide precipitous falls in population and even collapses of systems now in use.

“Population really is the denominator by which we need to judge everything else,” agrees Newman. “It’s critical, certain countries might be needing 30,000 new teachers just to cope with population levels, it’s not just about the obvious resources, otherwise levels of literacy and ignorance rise, making it yet harder to get things right. There’s been an assumption by policy makers that family planning will somehow just look after itself and this really isn’t the case.”

“In reality we need a more dispersed population, with access to land for sustainable food and energy production,” ponders Bunyard. “Embedded energy systems which meet local needs are important, plus transition town ideas, local resilience and relative sustainability.”

What are your views?  Not sure? Read the resources below for more information. Add your comment below. We welcome your thoughts and proposals. Not a Planetary Citizen? Sign up and start making a difference!

Resources:

Reports:

PSN: Population and Climate Change: Is there a link? If so, what are the priorities for action?
DFID: Synthesis of Population Project Evaluations
Impacts of Climate Change on Chinese Agriculture

Video’s:

Comments (1)