By Jane O’Sullivan, Francesco Ricciardi, Susann Roth
For sustainable development, universal wellbeing should be the goal, rather than endless growth. Minimizing further growth in human populations is only part of the solution, but an essential part.
Climate change has been described as one of the greatest challenges of our time. But for many Asian countries, it is only the latest in a long list of environmental challenges. Biodiversity loss, depleting aquifers, eroding soils, polluted fisheries and urban smog, to name a few.
In all its forms, environmental damage has reached a level that threatens human civilisation. Climate change is the most obvious threat, and demands the most far-reaching responses, since it directly implicates the energy supplies on which industrialisation and globalisation have been based. But food security – our most vulnerable basic need – is threatened from many other angles in addition to climate change. The loss of pollinator insects could cause immense hardships, as could the exhaustion of groundwater needed for irrigation, or depletion of phosphorus fertiliser supplies.
In some cases, environmental damage is symptomatic of poverty. In others, it is a consequence of development. But a common factor is population growth, multiplying activities that were once sustainable to a scale that no longer is. So far, humanity has been largely successful in mitigating the consequences of population increase on human lives, but other species have paid the penalty.
There is a lot of misunderstanding surrounding population growth and environmental damage. Here are five myths that need to be busted in order for us to find solutions.
Myth 1: Technological innovation will solve environmental problems.
As Eric Sevareid famously said, “The chief cause of problems is solutions.” In many instances, they were solutions to population pressure. Fossil fuels initially replaced the dwindling wood supplies in Europe, but soon generated energy demand on a scale that has transformed the Earth’s atmosphere. Domestication of cattle and sheep turned vast areas of non-arable land into highly nutritious foods, but their methane production and land clearing for grazing now exacerbate climate change. Synthetic nitrogen fertilisers alleviated otherwise inevitable famines, but now pollute aquatic ecosystems. Long-distance trade in foods allowed local specialisation, further increasing productivity and enabling large cities to absorb surplus labour. But with it came plastic waste, ozone-depleting refrigerant gases, pesticides and the loss of crop biodiversity.
Myth 2: Population growth can’t be lessened directly without human rights abuses.
Through the 1960s to 1980s, there was global concern about the threats population pressure posed on poverty reduction and food security. Many countries implemented voluntary family planning programs in an effort to lower birth rates. Shaped by local cultures, these programs provided access to contraception, promoted spacing and limiting births, and addressed barriers to women’s autonomy. They were highly successful, especially in East and Southeast Asia, giving women control over their bodies and their lives, improving family health and finances, and enabling greater investment in each child. National economies were boosted, returning many times the investment made.
But in some instances, ill-conceived programs forced involuntary measures, including a brief program of forced vasectomies of fathers in India, and China’s one-child policy. The backlash against these violations undermined even voluntary family planning efforts, which lost funding and fertility declines stalled. A false narrative was promoted, linking all concerns about population growth with draconian “population control” measures enforced against the will of recipients.
Myth 3: Population growth is good for the economy.
This narrative is popular with those who benefit from abundant cheap labour and rising land prices, but both trends impoverish the majority. Rapidly-growing countries have failed to reduce the numbers in poverty, with the exception of oil-rich states. All developing countries that reduced fertility sufficiently have seen strong growth in incomes, but only after fertility fell well below three children per woman. “Development is the best contraception” was once the mantra, but history now shows that contraception was the best stimulus to development.
Joseph Chamie, former head of the United Nations Population Division, refers to population growth advocacy as a Ponzi scheme. Chamie says, “‘Economic growth requires population growth’ is the basic message that Ponzi demography want the public to swallow. No mention is made of the additional profits they reap and the extra costs the public bears.”
Myth 4: Population aging is a big problem that demands more population growth.
Chamie explains, “Like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable. Among its primary tactics, it exploits the fear of population decline and ageing. Without a young and growing population we are warned of becoming a nation facing financial ruin and a loss of national power.”
Yet in the real world, population aging has not caused the economic downturns anticipated, and some countries with declining populations are increasing household incomes strongly. Aging has not caused less employment, but less unemployment. Elderly citizens increase only up to a point, and contribute to society in many ways. Their needs can be properly managed with better health systems and pension programs, offset by reduced spending on infrastructure as the population stabilizes.
Myth 5: We can grow for ever.
When we consider the headwinds of environmental deterioration, there are many advantages to population decline and aging. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would not be undone by rising energy needs. Increasing agricultural productivity can mean more land available for wildlife and carbon storage. Water resources would become more resilient to drought. Less concrete and steel would be needed, as our focus shifts from quantity to quality of the built environment. Greater contact with nature promotes health and mental wellbeing.
For sustainable development, we should aim for universal wellbeing, not endless growth. Minimising further growth in human populations is only part of the solution, but an essential part.
A version of this article appeared on the Asian Development Bank blog, December 2019.
9 thoughts on “Five myths about population, aging and environmental sustainability”
It seems to me broader distribution of TOPS messages is required for success.
Agreed! We’re working on it, and any suggestions are welcome. Feel free to pass on our blogs and papers via email, twitter, instagram, carrier pigeon, smoke signals …
The collapse of civilization will occur because humanity is in overshoot using the resources of 1.7 Earth’s and going deeper into overshoot every second due to the growing population (expected to grow by 3.2 billion reaching 10. 9 billion in 2100— a 41.5% growth in 80 years) and a growing per capita worldwide usage of resources. Simple math shows that to get out of overshoot the human population would have to be reduced to 4.47 billion. If the human population were to reach 10.9 billion in 2100, that would require a reduction in population of 6.43 billion (without considering any reduction due to the per capita increase in the usage of resources) to get out of overshoot. Simple statement— there is zero chance of voluntary population control will achieve that reduction (of about 6.43 billion) prior to the collapse of civilization and the deaths of billions. I defy anyone on the face of the earth to show that the previous statement is incorrect. Jason G Brent firstname.lastname@example.org
A wise and timely article, which prompts me, once again, to draw the authors’ attention to the Ponzi preaching currently being peddled by the Financial Times.
As mentioned in a previous comment, this broadsheet, influential in political and financial circles, is doing the ‘demographic time bomb’ crisis which apparently awaits us here in Europe.
So, we see, with dismay, the magical thinking and logical disconnection which underpins this agenda.
No mention is made of the mass migration transforming Europe, encouraged by the EU and various NGOs and media pundits.
No mention is made of the fact that countries which supply the greatest numbers of migrants are, in many cases, unstable, impoverished, autocratic states, which have the most need of the services of the young, fit and comparatively well educated ones who leave.
Public disquiet is growing and the alternatives, as laid out by these authors, are never given fair impartial consideration.
In the same FT, one can read studies on the need for more investment in renewables, clean energy and sustainable growth- the latter a favourite of mine.
What, exactly, is sustainable growth? Is it the reliance on tech, human rights, open borders, climate change activism and virtue signalling, of the kind now being promoted at Davos?
Why is it that those of us who challenge this and call for the urgent need for human population pressure to be contained, constrained and reduced, are denounced as eco-fascists?
Now the NYT is joining the ‘underpopulation crisis’- in China of all places!
Yes, but read the letters to the editor to the NY TImes piece and you get a very different message. Most people are with us on the need to rein in overpopulation. As you point out, the elites are force-feeding us messages about the need for continued growth, but I think the tide is turning.
Let’s hope so. Why is it that supposedly intelligent influential members of the so called elite persist in promoting this illogical nonsense?
Even more puzzling is the fact that they dress up this propaganda with green wash and ecobabble .
Here is another one. These demographic crisis accounts are popping up all over the place.
Nice succinct little piece. I particularly liked the point on the limits of ‘ageing’ trends in populations. I firmly believe longevity in ‘western’ countries will have already peaked, as the people who are currently living longer, are the last generation to have enjoyed relatively junkfood free diets. Also good to point out that ageing populations mean less unemployment, but, in the UK, unemployment has been ‘bottoming out’ for some time, which is one reason developers are so insistent they need to fill posts by migration, instead of getting out of the habit of ‘creating jobs’ for people who don’t exist, just to create more consumer goods that nobody really needs, just for the sake of boasting of ‘growth’.
I would also suggest dropping the term ‘sustainable development’, and going back to the original term ‘sustainability’. The addition of the ‘development’ qualifier is unnecessary, as the principles of sustainability, if followed, would not allow for any form of development which is not sustainable. The term ‘sustainable development’ has been deliberately twisted from its original meaning, so it now reads as an imperative to ‘sustain development’–to go on developing no matter what the cost! It is now one of the main drivers of environmental destruction in the UK, thanks to its being made a cornerstone of our ‘infinite planning for infinite growth system’.