• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Guest Contributor

    Environmentalists Need To Talk About Population Growth. Here’s How.

    October 3, 2022 By Sarah Baillie

    Ida Royani, Jamilah Volunteer provide counseling to Risni Apriani a pregnant mother about what to do during pregnancy in Bojongmanik Sub-District, Lebak, Banten Indonesia. (Oscar Siagian/ USAID-JALIN)

    On November 15, the world population is projected to reach 8 billion people. As we approach that milestone, there’s no denying that our rapidly growing human population also places extraordinary pressure on the environment. The human population has doubled in the last 50 years, while wildlife populations have been cut in half.

    Because the issue of human population growth is so complex, many environmentalists avoid the population conversation altogether. But if we talk openly about the ways it affects the planet, we can ensure that it is addressed with effective and rights-based solutions that have the potential to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by more than a third by 2100 as well.

    Population and Environmentalism: A Fraught History

    Despite clear scientific evidence of the damage done by population growth, the issue’s  complicated intersections with racism, injustice and capitalism make it difficult to tackle. First, there is a long and ongoing history of harms committed in the name of “population control.” The eugenicist roots of the population movement intensify these difficulties for many people because of the understandable trauma associated with the topic.

    Reflexively deflecting legitimate criticisms is not a useful approach. As environmentalists working on human population growth, we need to understand and acknowledge the sensitivities surrounding the topic.. Without that understanding, we can’t effectively advocate for the rights-based solutions that are needed.

    Yet environmentalists who denounce racism and eco-fascism may unintentionally continue to talk about population in ways that perpetuate white dominance, colonialism, gender injustice, classism, and other oppressive systems. That must change.

    The ability to decide if and when to have children, and how many to have, is a basic human right. That decision should never be dependent on race, ethnicity, class, or culture. Indeed, it should be supported by policies that improve sexual and reproductive health and rights. Questioning or criticizing someone for their preferred family size ignores key religious, economic, health, and other personal and societal factors that determine whether a person becomes pregnant.

    When we focus exclusively on numbers, such as total population or fertility rate, without considering factors like affluence and consumption patterns, we’re not looking at the bigger picture of how humans affect the environment — and vice versa. This can unfairly shift the blame of population pressure to those that have a relatively small environmental impact and are least responsible. It opens the door to oppressive, coercive policies and rhetoric. We should never shame or blame for family size.

    Seeking Inclusive Solutions

    All population-related solutions must be based on rights-based approaches such as education and empowerment of women and girls, respect for bodily autonomy, improved contraception access, and reproductive healthcare for all. T Policies that restrict access to reproductive healthcare, dictate the number of children people can have, or otherwise limit freedom promise devastating long-term consequences.

    Population advocacy also must extend beyond addressing only fertility rates and family planning.  It is also critical to understand that a person’s ability to determine their reproductive future — as well as their overall health and resilience in the face of climate change — depends on numerous factors like economic status, education and healthcare access.

    Hand in Hand: Gender Equity and Conservation 

    Countries with greater gender inequality also have problems  in creating healthy environmental conditions, which includes poorer species protection and worse performance on environmental health issues. This is no surprise. Policies that help address gender inequality could also help lower fertility rates, slow population growth, and leave more room for wildlife. The empowerment of women also can lead to increased environmental stewardship, and women in political positions of power are more likely to support more progressive environmental policy.

    Blue Ventures, a community-based marine conservation program in Madagascar, incorporates sexual and reproductive health services into an established conservation program, allowing providers to benefit from existing community relationships. Additional healthcare service offerings also expand the conservation program’s audience. This program has resulted in improved synergistic outcomes, greater use of contraceptives, that increase women’s involvement in natural resource management. Such outcomes would not be possible if these issues remained siloed.

    Population pressure is driven by many intertwined forces. Single-minded solutions that do not grapple with the complexities, like simply telling people to use contraception, disregard the interconnectedness of actions and systems. They also ignore how those factors can vary depending on geography, income and culture—as well as eliding the fact that such solutions often are not viable once they’re scaled up.

    For example, contraceptives can fail. So everyone needs safe, legal access to abortions. And these failures often extend beyond technological imperfections: a person may not know what contraceptives to use if they didn’t learn about the different methods in sex ed; or they may not have the time, money or means to visit a health clinic if there isn’t one nearby. Oversimplifying these issues fails to recognize the complex webs of oppression that threaten human rights, wildlife and the environment.

    Population pressure and its solutions are too important for environmentalists to leave out of the wider conversation. But by discussing these topics with sensitivity, humility and respect, we can engage more individuals and communities in embracing rights-based solutions that are as good for people as they are for nature.

    Sarah Baillie is the population and sustainability organizer at the Center for Biological Diversity.

    Sources: Center for Biological Diversity; Environmental Research; Global Ecology and Conservation; IISD; IUCN; Oryx; United Nations

    Image Credit: A volunteer provides counseling to a pregnant mother about what to do during pregnancy in Bojongmanik Sub-District, Lebak, Banten Indonesia, courtesy of Flickr user USAID Indonesia. Photo Credit: Oscar Siagian/USAID JALIN.

    Topics: adolescent health, comprehensive sexuality education, education, environment, family planning, global health, Guest Contributor, health systems, maternal health, newborn and child health, population, sexual and reproductive health
    • rodentx2

      As long as human overpopulation goes unchecked, there will be more consumers of Earth’s resources. Humans will devour all the other animals, wild and domestic–poor souls!

      From: “Divorce Among the Gulls,” by William Jordan:
      The master switches are population growth and Western economics. There is no unified, enforceable, worldwide policy to deal with them, and they are diametrically opposed to long-term survival. [8] billion people cannot help but poison the earth’s physiology, because [8] billion mouths devour so much of the planet’s biomass that the ecosystems are shorted, and [8] billion anuses produce so much feces that unless it is all recycled through the soil in which it originated, it accumulates in the water tables or in the off-shore waters. [8] billion people also desire the comfortable, easy, painless, narcotic lifestyle of the West, and that limbic desire foments Western industry. The living surface of Earth is a biological organ and cannot survive the caustic feces that industry for [8] billion produces. And Western economics, based on indefinite growth and driven by the self-interest of each individual, begets hysterical consumption of resources.

      The Pope is always talking about the poor but demands that there be more of them by condemning birth control and abortion.

    • Jeff

      What of the rights of nonhuman animals? That is never discussed because most people suffer from the “image of god” syndrome, that they were created to use all “creation” as they see fit. We have created religions that conveniently sell us on the idea that as we are in the image of god that we can do anything that we want to those that are not.

      The fact is that as we consider ourselves moral we are obligated to treat all other beings, humans and nonhumans, well and act to not harm them. That we reject this idea is the definition of evil, to choose to exalt ourselves above accountability for the harm that we cause those that we don’t value.

      • Jeff

        Derrick Jensen coined the term “human supremacist” to define this attitude toward the Earth and all the other life here. It’s as bad or worse than being any kind of supremacist, but human supremacists don’t see themselves that way and are blind to their immoral supremacism.

      • Robert Kuhnert

        So well said, fucking religious arrogance!

    • brian miller

      “Rights-based” solutions is code for….Fill in the blanks. Environmental organizations don’t mention human population because they have an ulterior motive, not because there is “understandable trauma associated with the topic.” Let’s get real, she nails the ultimate problem, ie. human population, yet has to politicize it with nonsense. If you look at birthrates, the number one reason for reduced rates is prosperity. Name a prosperous country (ie. first world) and you will find low birth rates compared to third world countries. I am not for unchecked capitalism, but “regulated” capitalism is the only solution to reduced birth rates for a relatively free population. As an aside, let’s hope Africa doesn’t destroy its unbelievable wildlife heritage like we did here in the U.S. That goes for the rest of the world that has some remaining semblance of its natural heritage.

      • Jeff

        It has been proven that it’s not prosperity, but education and empowerment of women and girls that lowers birthrates. See Countdown by Alan Weisman, for example. Creating more rich people who will consume more will just cause more environmental and ecological destruction.

        • brian miller

          Good points. No question the more independent women are financially the less they will tolerate from men, which explains, in part, the high divorce rate. But that creates other problems (at least in this country) as well…more storage units, apartments for expelled spouses, second families, etc. Back to your points, I reckon when woman put their careers ahead of having families there will be less children born. And when both parents work such families tend to have less children. But as you said rich people do consume more, for example, by taking in vacations in some humongous house along the beach or in the mountains that richer people build for such purposes thereby largely destroying wildlife habitat in these areas.

    • Mike Hanauer

      Yes, all so true. Yet, perhaps the most effective tactic is for all individuals and NGOs worried about our dying planet to include education of the population connection. People must know that there is a connection between the number of children they have and the quality of life they will inherit. They must see that the problem is in their own community and country and see that it is personal. It is not only “over there”.

      Population and our culture of eternal growth is the multiplier if virtually every problem we face. Everywhere.

    • David Kault

      In my city, I am allowed to have at most two dogs because of environmental considerations, but I am allowed to have 10 or more children – surely more disruptive for the neighbours than my dogs. Why must unlimited human reproduction be regarded as a more important human right than having another dog?

      • Jeff

        I don’t agree about dogs, I think they should be limited too. But I totally agree with you about limiting human children. It’s not about being a disturbance to neighbors, it’s about too many people causing great harm and destruction to the natural world and all the life there.

    • Jeff

      “Ecofascism” is an industry propaganda term the way this author uses it, and as a radical environmentalist and deep ecologist, I find it totally disgusting, and offensive not only to me, but to the natural world and all the life there. The only ecofascists are industries that harm the natural world, and governments that support them.

      The ability to decide if and when to have children, and how many to have, is a basic human right.

      No, it’s human supremacist BS. Sure, if you live in nature as a hunter-gatherer, it’s your right, because you won’t overpopulate. But for everyone else, the rights of the the Earth, its ecosystems, and all other species on the planet take precedence over human rights to have a lot of kids.

      I could go on, but I won’t. This author wants to have her cake and eat it too. The facts of racism and racist eugenics notwithstanding, you either focus on lowering human population — which means all humans — or you don’t lower it. Anthropocentric concerns that only affect humans should not take precedence over lowering human population. When it comes to political issues like these, priorities are everything. Do you prioritize the Earth and all the life here, or do you prioritize humans or some group or groups of them? Can’t have it both ways if some people are arguing that they should be allowed to have a lot of kids.

      The Chinese one-child-family policy was a raging success. It is estimated that the policy prevented 500 million births. The Earth and all the life here is much better off because of that policy. A global 0ne-child family policy combined with empowerment and education of women and girls is what’s needed here. The problem isn’t human population growth, it’s overpopulation. We probably need about 200 years of a global one-child-family policy to get human population down to an ecologically balanced level.

      And BTW, consumption is just one problem caused by human overpopulation. There is no doubt that along with overpopulation, human overconsumption is the twin physical cause of all environmental problems, and both problems must be fixed. But another major harm from overpopulation is land consumption. Between humans, their agriculture, and their infrastructure, humans occupy more than half of the terrestrial land on Earth, and most of the remainder is unsuitable habitat for all but the most primordial species. We need far fewer humans on Earth in order to give the other species room to live, simple as that.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous souhaitons que le partenaire nous apporte son soutien technique et financier.
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous sommes une organisation féminine dénommée: Actions Communautaires pour le Développement de...
  • hongqiao-liu1 As China Adjusts for “True Cost” of Rare Earths, What Does It Mean for Decarbonization?
    Anthony Maw: It is just another one of those "inconvenient truths". Western defense and security analysts often...

Related Stories

  • Copy of 1025 Live Tweeting Templates (645 × 430 px) (645 × 500 px)Global Population Growth is an Opportunity to Invest in People
  • World Population Day Shines a Spotlight on Inequities
  • Event Summary Cover photoMy Body, My Voice, My Choice: Launching UNFPA’s 2021 State of World Population Report
  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000