Why Over- Population Matters

Since the early 1980s the subject of over-population has largely disappeared from official discussions about third world poverty and environmental decline. As John Gray points out in Heresies, governments and environmental groups blame institutional failure these problems rather than demographics. However, much of the disinterest in over-population is due to political denial rather than rational inquiry.

Among U.S governments population control programmes have been promoted by the Democrats but rejected by the Republicans. Increases in spending on overseas family planning have been reversed by George Bush in line with his views on abortion. Liberal human rights advocates have also attacked population control programmes arguing that they infringe on individual rights. Although most of this criticism has been directed at the more extreme programmes like China's One Child Policy, it has helped undermine the legitimacy of population control programmes in general. The good work done by organisations like Sustainable Population International has also gone largely unnoticed in the Western media.

Another problem has been confusion over the extent of the over-population problem. In the 1980s the rate of population increase declined but the total world population will continue to increase untill at least 2040. Many media reports gave the impression that a slowing down of population growth would lead to rapid population stabilisation, but this hasn't occurred. Subsequently, the present world population of 6 billion will reach at least 7.5-8 billion. At present industrialisation in Southern China is having a big impact on world commodity prices. Soon this industrialisation may spread to the rest of China and India creating absolute scarcity of many essential resources. Subsequently, if the world's population grows beyond 7.5 billion, mass starvation could well occur in many poorer parts of the world.

Marxists and libertarians argue that the world can accomodate a continual increase in population through technological innovation and up to a point this is true. However, it is clearly apparent, even among developed countries, that a higher population leads to a poorer quality of life- compare Britain and Australia for example. Unless you want to live like a battery chicken, technology can't help you without population control. In poor politically unstable countries like Rwanda over-population can lead to genocide.

Similarly, just because some countries can accommodate large numbers of poeple successfully doesn't mean the whole planet can. The world is increasingly an economically integrated whole with the more sparsely populated countries supplying natural resources and farm products for the densely populated regions- under-populated countries don't really exist.

Although some developed countries have stable populations , the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand still have rapidly growing populations due to immigration. The population of the U.S will apparently reach 300 million in 2006. This immigration has been used to provide temporary economic growth and disguise poor levels of productivity. The winners have been the wealthy elites- particularly those engaged in property speculation. The U.S, Canada and Australasia have the highest rates of resource use per capita in the world. Adding to their populations will only accelerate consumption of finite resources and make it all the more difficult for their governments to agree to limits on emmissions.

Environmental decline is essentially caused by two factors- population growth and industrialisation. Unless over-population is addressed efforts to make industry more environmentally friendly will have little impact. It is also politically easier to get people to accept population control than it is to get them to accept a lower standard of living.