Does too much human population truly endanger the planet?

There are currently 8 billion people on the planet. This represents a steep increase since 1950. We increased from 2 billion to 8 billion people in only 70 years. Its graph is a frightening sight. How on Earth can such a population be supported? especially considering the unsustainable rate at which resources are being extracted. Could the implications of our continued growth at this alarming rate bring about the world's end? Many people on the left and the right appear to agree with this.

But when we go further and examine the facts, the study paints a different picture. The myth of overpopulation utterly ignores the more fundamental reasons for climate change when it is advanced by environmentalists and used by the right to control bodies, build up borders, and foment racial conflict.

So today, let's explore the overpopulation spectre. Its origins, the agitators who use it for violent ends, and the harm that a population-focused approach can do to the environment and society.

A Brief History of Overpopulation

Thomas Malthus, a Church of England minister and economist, expressed fear in 1798. He worried that there wouldn't be enough food and production to support such an increase as he observed the fast-expanding people all around him. Because of this, he authored a book called An Essay on the Principles of Population in which he made the case that because the human population was expanding far more quickly than the food was being produced, society would eventually come to an end. Malthus contended that the only way to avert this calamity was to force the poor to have fewer children and to let them die more frequently. In summary, Malthus claimed that the poor lacked "moral restraint," which was causing uncontrolled birthrates, and sought to abolish support programs like England's "Poor Laws."

Malthus even went so far as to suggest that municipalities should "seek the return of the plague" among the underprivileged by "creating narrower streets, cramming more people into smaller homes, and encouraging populations in all swampy and unwholesome locations." He was mistaken; not only were the poor not burdening the food system, but during the 19th and 20th centuries, as the world population soared, so did resource productivity. We were able to stop the collapse. However, Malthus had sown a seed. One that reemerged during the course of the following two centuries.

It was present when Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot forcibly removed Native Americans from their homes in the name of conservation, it was entangled with the eugenics programs of fascist regimes like the Nazis and Mussolini, and it most notably returned to the forefront in 1968 with the publication of biologist Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb. In it, Ehrlich updates many of Malthus's ideas for the current day while still borrowing heavily from them. He made the case that an overpopulation disaster is on the horizon by referencing the writings of a growing movement of neo-Malthusian authors like Fairfield Osborn and William Vogt. He further emphasizes this point by telling a tale about his drive through the streets of Dehli at the book's opening.

Ehrlich says that the filthy, crowded, and unlivable streets of Dehli are a foreshadowing of what is to come in a world with too many people. His writing is steeped in compassion for the impoverished. And people were moved by Ehrlich's thoughts. Over two million copies of the book were sold, and it ignited the environmental movement. Ehrlich frequently appeared on talk shows to discuss the significance of population control, stating that "a large fall in the birthrate is necessary if we wish to avert a tremendous increase in the death rate." And many people who attended the inaugural Earth Day in 1970 came to spread awareness of population growth.

Ehrlich was joined in the 1970s by Garret Hardin in reviving and popularizing the notion of the spectre of overpopulation, though. an American environmentalist who combined the racially tinged remedies of nationalism and private property with the overpopulation dilemma. The Tragedy of the Commons and Lifeboat Ethics are two writings by Hardin that are now often referenced in discussions of ecology and population. Lifeboat Ethics expands on the Tragedy of the Commons' claim that private land ownership is the cure for environmental deterioration and overpopulation by arguing that in an overpopulated world, the rich nations' lifeboats must defend themselves and their resources from the drowning poorer nations trying to clamber aboard.

Hardin argues that to protect resources from the overproducing masses of the imperial periphery, we must erect fortifications around wealthy nations. Later on, we'll learn that Ehrlich and Hardins' population ideas were both incorrect. However, Hardin and Ehrlich demonstrate how Malthusian ideas have been used across the political spectrum. Ehrlich, a self-described environmentalist, regarded population control as a way to slow down environmental damage, whereas Hardin viewed it from the perspectives of racial purity and property rights. And these two ideologies have now established themselves in the public discourse and permeate a startling number of political and environmental discussions on both the right and the left.

Overpopulation for the right

The racist traditions of Thomas Malthus and Garrett Hardin are far from extinct. They have just changed to match the new age. One where the far right, which is steeped in white supremacy and ultranationalism, is on the rise and where immigration is its main bogeyman. If you truly want to explore the connections between fascism and climate change, you will find that they are intricate. But for now, it's important to note that people on the extreme right sometimes link the problem of overpopulation to their claims that they can create a country that is ethnically pure by brutally reversing immigration. "Mass population increase negatively impacts nearly everyone's quality of life." "Congress...will bring in a million more immigrants, and these nations will regrettably add another 80 million people."

"...needs to start discussing immigration because if you look at the growth in Britain's population presently, you will find that there is a pretty big divergence in the fertility of the immigrant population to the fertility of what you would call the indigenous population." A warped reaction to resource depletion and climate change has been formed by certain far-right groups. One that gives their white nationalist dreams a dash of green. A direct descendant of Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics is this one as well. In their book, White Skin, Black Fuel, Andreas Malm and the Zetkin Collective emphasize that there are two ways in which the green nationalist ideology explains environmental degradation and, eventually, global warming.

The first is by asserting that unchecked population growth in the Global South is the root cause of this ecological problem, and the second is by making unfounded claims that migration from the South to the North is a contributing factor in climate change. So, in the eyes of some far-right factions, overpopulation is closely linked with threats to ecological and national purity, which is why Bj?rn H?cke, a prominent member of Germany's far-right party, receives cheers when he makes the connection between the population growth of Africa and the security of European borders: "The countries of Africa, they need German borders. The African nations require the borders of Europe to have an environmentally sound population policy.

Among other groups, splinters of the American far-right, the Finnish far-right, and the German far-right are raising worries about the overpopulation of immigrants who are racialized, outsiders. And this widespread portrayal of overpopulation as a problem primarily caused by non-white nations outside the imperial core rather than merely a universal one hasn't gone ignored. These descriptions have repercussions.

The shooters in El Paso, Christchurch, and most recently Buffalo all carried out their murders in the name of environmental preservation and population control. It's the birthrates, it's the birthrates, it's the birthrates, begins the manifesto of the Christchurch shooter who killed 51 people at a mosque in New Zealand. Continuing, he asserts, "The invaders are the ones overpopulating the earth... Kill the invaders and the population overpopulation to save the ecosystem. A few months later, the El Paso shooter's manifesto claimed that immigration and population growth are contributing to environmental damage, which is what gave rise to this violent rant.

The manifesto says that "if we can get rid of enough people, our way of life can be more viable" and forewarns of a "Hispanic invasion." Finally, the Buffalo shooter, an eco-fascist who opened fire in a largely black grocery store, continued this violent, racist justification in his 2022 manifesto by asserting that communities of colour and immigrants are to blame for "environmental issues such as air pollution, plastic waste, and climate change." Thus, the far-right is affected directly and violently by the threat of overpopulation. It is a lie that legitimizes the simmering racism and racial nationalism among white nationalists. However, population control can also take the form of state-approved initiatives that are less violent but distressing.

Fascist ideology's excessive brutality has a history of seeping into the positions of individuals who consider themselves to be more moderate. A lengthy history of sterilization and fertility control schemes that were imposed on the imperial periphery by the imperial core go hand in hand with the long history of population panic. The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, for instance, suggested in 1959 that foreign aid be granted to "developing countries which adopt measures to restrict population increase." And then, seven years later, President Lydon Johnson turned that advice into law, launching a string of USAID population control initiatives over the next ten years. Furthermore, the World Bank made it a condition of receiving help that nations implement a program for population control.

In India, during the 21-month "Emergency" period in 1976, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi oversaw the forced sterilization of 8.3 million Indians as a result of her fanaticism over population increase. The majority, who were sterilized without their choice, were mostly men. But in the 1970s, this form of population control was regrettably widespread. If several U.S.-sponsored population initiatives achieved their objectives, "as many as 100 million women worldwide would be sterilized," bragged the head of the U.S. Office of Population in 1977. The imperial core, particularly the United States, exploited its financial hegemony in the second half of the 20th century to force the imperial periphery to carry out population purges.

Additionally, as countries like the U.S. tried to control the populations of non-white countries, they also exterminated marginalized groups inside their boundaries. This is eugenics, to put it bluntly. Millions of people of colour were sterilized by white governments and the white persons in charge of them under the fictitious threat of overpopulation. It makes no difference whether or not these leaders of overcrowding perceived the threat or used it as justification for creating their ethnic country. The outcome is the same. But environmentalists on the left have also contributed to the myth of the population bomb, so it isn't simply the far right who exaggerates the danger of population increase.

Overpopulation for the left

Michael Moore, a lefty documentary maker best known for Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine, executive produced Planet of the Humans, a film on climate change, in 2019. According to the movie, renewable energy sources won't be sufficient to address the severity of climate change. It asserts that the problem of overpopulation and over-industrialization must be confronted head-on by environmentalists if it is to be stopped. Not just Planet of the Humans shares this mindset. The film seizes on a common theme that has persisted since the 1960s in the largely white, male-dominated environmental movement. Paul Ehrlich made it famous, and others like Bill Nye, David Attenborough, and even Bernie Sanders have continued to promote it.

All of these environmental leaders share beliefs with those on the right and far right that there are too many people on the planet, that our numbers are ruining the natural world, and that we need to reduce our population to rescue both the environment and ourselves. The fundamental tenet of this hypothesis is that emissions are increasing quickly because of the planet's population growth. Therefore, we must address the population to prevent climate change, food shortages, and environmental degradation. The remedies to the overpopulation issue, however, are where the left somewhat differs from the right.

Environmental activists concerned about overpopulation attempt to propose alternatives of population control free of racial or class prejudice rather than open eugenics, ethnic cleansing, or establishing barriers to keep out the apparent overpopulation of immigrants. of excessive population. Many liberal environmentalists argue that family planning access and education are the best ways to reduce population growth rather than using force or ethnic cleansing. The population growth between 2050 and 2100 will be moderated in large part by the actions we take in the areas of education, economic development, health, and nutrition between now and 2050. Bill Gates is leading the charge to use family planning and education to slow down population growth in the imperial periphery. one that makes an effort to frame population control as a decision. To be clear, it is crucial to increase access to family planning.

However, when viewed from the perspective of population growth, the notion of family planning is substantially more constrained. It ceases to be about giving women and their partners the freedom to choose the type of family they desire. Instead, the focus shifts to regulating family size. The premise that family planning is about supporting individuals to have the families that they desire to have, as noted by history professor Matthew Connoly in an interview with Al Jazeera, "means that you need to be assisting those who are not able to have children." What are the ramifications of a very successful white man like Bill Gates promoting birth control and education for individuals in the imperial periphery?

Bill Gates and those who support reproductive rights in the name of slowing population increase appear to desire women to have fewer children rather than reproductive rights. Additionally, there are other presumptions hidden beneath the surface that connect to the racial foundations of the overpopulation myth. The issues that Bill Gates the world creates by collecting enormous amounts of wealth inevitably appear to fall on the backs of the poor, people of colour, women, and those in the imperial periphery. Whether it's Malthus, Sir David Attenborough, or Prince Phillip, people who worry about overpopulation always appear to be in positions of authority. Poor women of colour in the Global South are the scapegoats for their imagined problem.

The crucial point is that this overpopulation illusion motivates a dubious and perilous response. One that appears paternalistic and works to prevent marginalized individuals from harming themselves. Whatever the motivations for this population control, the truth is that there is no issue with overpopulation. People who are too concerned about population are not only overlooking the true causes of environmental degradation and climate change, but they are also committing time and resources to remedies that are at best damaging and violent and at worst ineffectual. Let's examine what is truly occurring with the world's population and the root of the issue.

The truth about "overpopulation"

As I mentioned before, there are currently 8 billion people living on Earth. If the sudden increase in population over the past century has alarmed you, take a deep breath and relax. The pace of population increase is projected by the UN to be decreasing and maybe even declining. More specifically, by 2100, the population should reach a plateau of around 10.4 billion. Therefore, contrary to what some people believed in the 20th century, the world's population will not continue to double until it abruptly collapses. Instead, it appears that we will eventually reach a point when the population may begin gradually declining. Due in part to decreased fertility rates and families having fewer children globally, population growth is slowing down globally. Because there is not enough food or resources, it won't be. We currently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people.

However, for many, the issue is overcrowding today rather than projected population growth. Too many people use excessive amounts of food, fuel, and land. This argument not only ignores the fact that the imperial core consumes and emits at much higher rates than the periphery, which would result in an immediate end to world hunger and poverty if resources were distributed equally, but it also ignores the reality of human consumption and environmental destruction. As we can see, emissions have a significantly stronger correlation with GDP than population. There is no doubt that 8 billion people living in a world with no carbon emissions will have less of an impact than 8 billion people living in one that burns fossil fuels.

And when examining countries on a national scale, it becomes clear that fewer people do not always equate to lower emissions. For instance, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar are all large emitters yet have very sparse populations. This demonstrates how the materials created for human use have a huge influence on the environment. Numbers are not the issue; rather, it is our production and consumption practices that are to blame. To put it another way, 500,000 individuals driving gas-guzzling vehicles produce far more pollution than the three million people who use electric trams to go about. Unfortunately, in today's society, businesses can earn more from pick-up trucks than from electric trams, so that is what they create.

Since eight billion people are stranded in a capitalist system powered by fossil fuels, their only option is to continuously produce emissions and take resources. Briefly stated, according to Martin Epsom's article in the Socialist Worker, "Environmental destruction is not the product of more people, but rather of a system that mindlessly prioritizes its financial interests over the needs of people or the world." To fundamentally revolutionize the way we create and eventually consume, we must turn our attention away from the problem of population growth.

Future of a World with Zero Carbon

The production of fossil fuels is the cause of climate change. production that is fueled by a capitalist system that favours harmful extraction practices, environmental degradation, and labour exploitation. Simply said, fossil fuel capitalism, not overpopulation, is to blame for climate change. Given that, three things must occur to stop climate change and end the suffering of billions of people. Eliminating fossil fuels is the first step. Neither this nor the elimination of carbon dioxide emissions will occur overnight or without a workable replacement. "Abolition is about presence, not absence," says academic activist Ruth Wilson Gilmore.

Therefore, in addition to building alternatives like hemp-based production, renewable energy grids, food cooperatives, and much more, we must simultaneously demolish the fossil fuel business and everything connected to it through blockades, valve-turning, investing, phone banking, and protests. But to stop and reverse climate change, the imperial core must also atone for centuries of oppressed people both inside and outside of its boundaries. This takes us to the second task that needs to be done. Climate-related damages. Rich nations in the imperial core and multinational corporations that have profited by destroying the environment and murdering people must be compelled or voluntarily dedicate financial and intellectual resources toward healing the wounds they have created.

Without conditions or a need for a return on investment, this must be done. At their root, climate reparations are a large transfer of wealth intended to make up for inequality that, according to popular belief, is driven by overpopulation but results from centuries of exploitation and dispossession by the imperial core. However, it will be difficult to eliminate fossil fuels and implement climate reparations within our existing racist capitalist system. Because of this, we must strive toward the third goal—a socialist revolution—while we develop the strength for the other two. Ending fossil capitalism as we know it would be necessary for a genuine reversal of climate change. Even a small carbon fee is insufficient.

The evidence is clear: We must put a stop to the fossil fuel business. The quickest and most ethical way to achieve this is to give workers complete control over our production, directing our factories and material commodities toward a zero-carbon future.