On Population

Over the past decade Americans have become increasingly interested in reducing the responsibility they feel for the negative impact that their existence has on the chemical and biological makeup of our planet.  Many people make daily decisions to reduce their "footprint" so long as they don't have to drastically alter their routines, and some are even willing to pay more money or suffer more inconvenience in order to be friendly to the planet.  Most of these same people would identify themselves as being in agreement with Charles Darwin and his ideas about natural selection and survival of the fittest.  According to these theories, as humans we should ultimately be concerned with ensuring the continued existence of our species, and one aspect of that concern should be to avoid poisoning our habitat or causing a disruption in the food chain.  I want to emphasize that our interests in being green are and should be selfish.  The Earth herself doesn't care which chemicals are in the atmosphere, or even if life exists on her surface and in her oceans.  And as for the other species, if they cannot adapt to the constantly changing ecosystems, then it is natural and proper that they should go extinct.  For example, if we fish cod into extinction then they are merely joining a very long list of species on this planet that have failed the test of survival.  Now we may wish to preserve the cod species because they are critical, useful, or merely delicious.  However I wish to emphasize that our protection of them, or the coral reefs, or panda bears, is ultimately a self-serving goal.

It is easily conceivable that we could inadvertently alter our planet drastically enough that we could make it uninhabitable for our progeny.  It is my opinion that we as a species should be aware of this and take certain precautions in order to forestall our extinction, but our extinction is almost certainly inevitable.  We could be annihilated next year by a rogue asteroid, or we could survive until our sun goes red giant and engulfs our little blue planet, or we could even survive that event only to perish when the last star in the Milky Way fizzles out.

So, what is a more realistic goal than "the infinite continuation of the human species"?  How about we try to reduce human suffering due to shortages of resources?  I will die one day, maybe soon, but I would prefer if it was not due to starvation, famine, disease, or exposure.

Have I piqued your interest?  I have a single offspring, and people (usually strangers) often ask when my wife and I will have more.  Well, sometimes when two adults really love one another... a baby comes.  But as far as planning goes, I feel that it is irresponsible to increase the human population of the Earth, and there are plenty of unwanted children out there who would benefit from adoption.  I find it fascinating that this is not a point of view that I am comfortable sharing with strangers, probably because it is an indictment of most families.

Our planet has a carrying capacity, and that capacity certainly rises with technological innovations, but at some point even if food and fuel and water do not limit our population, then physical space will.  Even well fed humans will not live shoulder to shoulder with other humans, and even if we would, at some point we would have to become a planet sized pile of living bodies to keep growing.  In other words, our population is limited.  In today's geopolitical realities, a baby born in the "west" (read: wealthy country) will generally have ample access to food, fuel, water, and space, but these resources are limited, so others must be deprived in order to supply the wealthy.  Of course this sort of zero-sum game is unsustainable (the deprived will resort to violence to keep their resources) but in the meantime there will be unnecessary suffering.

I say it is unnecessary because if every human adult made the choice to be responsible for the global population, there would be no shortage of resources.  I will not deprive another human of resources because I "want more kids".  The right to procreate is a basic human right only insofar as it does not interfere with the basic human rights of others.  Instead of trying to emulate some stereotype about the "perfect family" whose authorship you haven't even considered, you could adopt or foster a person who is already in existence.