Transcript environmental refugees: ethical issues involving overpopulation

ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES: ETHICAL
ISSUES INVOLVING OVERPOPULATION
John Cairns, Jr.
University Distinguished Professor of Environmental Biology Emeritus
Department of Biological Sciences
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, U.S.A.
February 2010
ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES ARE PRODUCED WHEN THE HUMAN
POPULATION EXCEEDS THE CARRYING CAPACITY OF A PARTICULAR REGION
AND INDIVIDUALS SEARCH FOR A MORE HOSPITABLE AREA.
 Environmental refugees are already a serious problem in many parts of the world because Earth’s
carrying capacity for humans is limited (i.e., overpopulation).
 Massive migration from affected areas is toward areas perceived to have more resources than the
damaged area.
 The problem of human environmental refugees will continue to worsen due to both the effects of
climate change (such as loss of agricultural productivity) and human damage to natural systems
(such as massive deforestation).
 Continued exponential growth of the human population, together with a marked increase in
resource consumption caused by regional economic growth, exacerbates the problem of
environmental refugees.
 Irreversible change in carrying capacity means that a return to their homeland will be impossible
for many environmental refugees.
 Since ecological overshoot (i.e., using more resources than Earth can regenerate) is global, most
nations, possibly all nations, have already exceeded their long-term carrying capacity for humans.
HARDIN1 REMARKS: “ONCE IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT THE
CARRYING CAPACITY HAS BEEN TRANSGRESSED THE
BATTLE CONTINUES ALONG OTHER LINES.” HE QUOTES
ALDO LEOPOLD: “HERD REDUCTION IS LIKE PAYING THE
NATIONAL DEBT; NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT NOW.”
 Since significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions seems to have little political urgency
and since ecological lag times can be lengthy, the environmental refugee problem could
continue for decades or more.
 “Limits to growth” has many prominent deniers, such as the US President’s Council of
Economic Advisors: “The existing propensities of the population and policies of the
government constitute claims upon the GNP [Gross National Product] itself that can only
be satisfied by rapid economic growth.”2
 Finite resources and finite space per capita on a finite planet decrease as the population
increases, which is currently over 70 million individuals each year.
 For most of the 160,000 years that Homo sapiens has been on Earth, the dominant view
has been that resources are limited – the present dominant view is that humankind will be
ever more affluent in the future. The global financial meltdown in the first decade of the
21st century has weakened, but not destroyed, this current viewpoint.
SINCE THOMAS MALTHUS EXPLAINED THE PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH POPULATION INCREASE,
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE HAS BEEN VIRTUALLY
TABOO.
 The ethical justification for population control is to avoid human misery.
 In a global population of nearly 7 billion humans, more than 1 billion were
starving in 2009 (www.globalresearch.ca). In addition, the number of
malnourished people in 2009 was over 1 billion.
 At least 2 billion people who are starving and malnourished, out of nearly 7
billion, is surely a matter of concern.
 In the absence of reproductive prudence in humankind, Mother Nature (i.e., laws
of nature) will eliminate the part of the population in excess of carrying capacity
with starvation and disease.
DOES HUMANKIND WISH TO SEE HOW MANY
PEOPLE CAN EXIST ON EARTH AT A
SUBSISTENCE LEVEL OR DETERMINE HOW
MANY PEOPLE CAN LIVE A QUALITY LIFE?
 Surely, few people would admit to preferring the present situation with over 2
billion people starving or malnourished.
 In the present economic circumstances, the ranks of the starving will increase
substantially.
 Are very affluent people aware of the circumstances or just indifferent to them?
 Does Homo sapiens really believe it is exempt from the laws of nature or has it
enough documented examples to foresee its future if “business as usual”
regarding exponential population growth continues? Is human intelligence used
for delusions and denial rather than accepting reality and initiating action?
REDUCING HUMAN POPULATION SIZE WILL NOT
ELIMINATE MISERY UNLESS THE VAST GAP BETWEEN THE
EXTREMELY POOR AND EXTREMELY WEALTHY IS REDUCED.
 On a finite planet, supply cannot increase beyond fairly predictable limits.
However, demand can continue increasing indefinitely.
 Satisfying demand at the expense of biospheric health and integrity is an
unsustainable, short-term solution.
 At a 1% growth rate for the human population, the doubling time is about 70
years, which is equal to the lifespan of some individuals in developed countries.
At the same time, per capita consumption is increasing, especially in third-world
countries.
 The damage to the biosphere for most of the last 1 million years would be
difficult to document.
 At present, damage to the biosphere (e.g., melting glaciers) is evident to an
observant layperson almost anywhere in the world.
NO MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL IS SOCIALLY
ACCEPTABLE IN GROWTH ORIENTED CULTURES, BUT
SHOULD BE MORE ACCEPTABLE THAN NATURE’S
CONTROLS OF STARVATION AND DISEASE, ESPECIALLY
PANDEMIC DISEASES.
 Hardin3 remarks: “The community, which guarantees the survival of children,
must have the power to decide how many children shall be born.”
 When individual actions collectively threaten the biospheric life support system,
which is the key to the survival of Homo sapiens, individual “rights” must be
rationed.
 Mother Nature does not recognize individual “rights,” only natural laws of
biology, physics, and chemistry, which do not permit exceeding carrying capacity.
 Homo sapiens is not exempt from natural law and should have the intelligence to
recognize this situation.
EXPONENTIAL POPULATION GROWTH CANNOT LONG CONTINUE
ON A FINITE EARTH. ACTIONS INDICATE THAT HUMANITY
PREFERS A MAXIMUM POPULATION SIZE WITH A SUBSTANTIAL
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN MISERY.
INTELLECTUALLY, HUMANKIND PROFESSES TO DESIRE AN
OPTIMAL POPULATION WITH A SIGNIFICANT RESERVE OF
RESOURCES FOR EMERGENCIES.
 Human population must match resources available, which should dictate
population size.
 Carrying capacity is not static, so continued up or down adjustments will be
mandatory.
 Agricultural productivity is declining due to climate change, but, if all humankind
became vegetarians, food might be adequate if it were equitably distributed.
 If cat and dog food were no longer distributed, then more food of lower quality
would be available for humans.
 Tropical climate pests are moving into temperate agricultural zones, which will
reorder calculations of food availability.
“PRIMITIVE” HUNTER/GATHERER TRIBES STAYED WITHIN
CARRYING CAPACITY: “AS COMPARED WITH MORE
ADVANCED CULTURES – PARTICULARLY OUR OWN – MODERN
HUNTER/GATHERERS HAVE HAD EXCELLENT CONTROL OF
THE SIZE OF THEIR POPULATIONS, SHOWING NO TREND
TOWARDS AN INCREASE IN NUMBERS UNTIL RECENTLY.”4
 “. . . population checks [for hunter-gathers] were so widespread as to have been
practically universal.”4
 “These checks were variable and took the form of abortion, infanticide,
prolonged abstention from intercourse, and the postponement of marriage, the
result being an approach to the optimum number in each society.” 4
 “It is better for the community to destroy an infant or young child whose chances
of survival are small anyway than to hinder the mother unnecessarily in her task
of food gathering. Cooperation and reciprocity are a matter of life and death for
Aboriginal societies.” 4
 Present societies have superior means of birth control but do not control
population size to keep it within carrying capacity.
TWO MAJOR OBSTACLES COULD HINDER ANY ATTEMPT TO
STOP EXPONENTIAL POPULATION GROWTH: (1) THE
ABSOLUTE REFUSAL TO MAKE PLANNED SOCIAL CHANGES
SUCH AS POPULATION CONTROL, (2) AN ALMOST RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP OF TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS (E.G.,
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS).
 The present resistance to changing from fossil fuels to non-carbon alternatives is
an indication and example of how fierce resistance to population control will be.
 Ironically, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions may worsen if humankind
actually reaches 2 billion automobiles and other vehicles
(1 billion exist now) as predicted.5 Such an occurrence is not sustainable.
 When resources are scarce, resource wars are increasingly probable.6 Wars also
consume resources (e.g., petroleum), rapidly worsening depletion rates. Wars
also diminish the probability of equitable sharing.
 No urgency exists in the general public and governing units in addressing the
problems of climate change, overconsumption, and overpopulation – all of which
produce environmental refugees.
Acknowledgments. I am indebted to Darla Donald for transcribing the
handwritten draft and for editorial assistance in preparation for publication,
and to Valerie Sutherland for converting it to Power Point.
References
1Hardin,
2Heller,
G. 1993. Living Within Limits. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
W. 1971. As quoted by G. Hardin. 1993. Living Within Limits. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK, p. 190.
3Hardin,
G. 1972. Exploring New Ethics for Survival. Viking Press, Inc., New York.
4Dilworth,
C. 2010. Two Smart for Our Own Good: The Ecological Predicament of
Humankind. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
5Sperling,
6Klare,
D. and D. Gordon. 2009. Two Billion Cars. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
M. 2001. Resource Wars. Metropolitan Books, New York.