For many decades, environmentalists have worried about overpopulation for many reasons. Some of them ask the question: can people have children at a time when the climate crisis is felt so badly? Suggestions are coming from all sides already now to think about measures aimed at stopping the natural growth of the planet's population.
Shocking idea
To many, this idea will seem inhuman, shocking and selfish. Most reasonable people subject it to violent obstruction, some make reasonable arguments and cite as an example the failed attempt to combat overpopulation in China. Incessant debate threatens to split society into two irreconcilable camps. On the one hand, there are environmentalists who care about the health of the planet, on the other, there are reasonable people who care about the quality of the gene pool. But before sharing the point of view of this or that camp, it is necessary to familiarize yourself with the arguments confirmed by research activities
Population engineering
The environmental camp is represented by Jake Earl, Colin Hickey and Travis Reeder, who conducted research called Population Engineering, or the deliberate manipulation of the world's inhabitants. In their work, the experts took into account all the arguments against this theory. In the end, they have not changed their beliefs and still believe that people need to reflect on the ethics of population reproduction in the era of global climate change.
Promotional video:
Could climate change be a hoax?
The most zealous opponents of environmentalists express fears about the real scale of the impending catastrophe on Earth. Some skeptics believe that the very fact of climate change is a hoax or an invention of those who want to manipulate public consciousness. In other words, this is an invention of a powerful group of people who seeks to take control of the world's resources. Well, since this is so, one should not attach importance to the topic so carefully exaggerated in the press. However, a scientifically grounded counterargument is put forward against the opinion of skeptics: in 97 percent of cases, the theory of global climate change is confirmed by research works and real facts. Other problems require more detailed consideration.
Fear speculation
People who have already responded to the work on the ethics of childbearing in the context of global climate change believe that an increase in average annual temperature will not be able to adversely affect the existence of the population as a whole. Therefore, the call for the adoption of measures aimed at artificially reducing the rate of population growth is nothing more than speculation on the fears of gullible citizens. If nothing bad awaits the planet, why discourage people who want to have healthy offspring from the joy of motherhood and fatherhood?
Let's consider the possible scenarios. The experts spoke about this in their work. In their opinion, an increase in average annual temperatures by only 1.5-2 degrees Celsius in comparison with the accepted industrial minimum (indicators of the second half of the 19th century) will be "dangerous" and will have a very bad effect on the environmental situation as a whole. But an increase in average annual temperatures by 4 degrees will become "catastrophic" and will put large segments of the Earth in conditions that are largely unsuitable for human life. Below we provide you with a brief overview of the evidence, data for which is taken from reputable sources.
What will happen to the planet if the temperature rises by 1.5-2 degrees?
The World Bank report predicts an increase in extreme weather events, unbearable heat waves and changes in water topography. Drought in fertile areas will entail a massive decrease in the rate of food production, migration of animals to cooler conditions will lead to outbreaks of infectious diseases. Rising sea levels, coupled with increased severity of storms, will threaten the normal existence of coastal cities. According to experts from the World Health Organization, the average temperature on the planet will reach these levels in the near future: between 2030 and 2050. From now on, 250,000 people will die annually from causes associated with global warming.
Stratification by region
People living in economically developed regions will be protected from damage to some extent. The same cannot be said about countries like Bangladesh, the Caribati or the Maldives. And this only exacerbates the injustice, as the richest countries have contributed more to climate change, and the poor are the first to take the hit.
What happens when the average temperature rises by 4 degrees?
And already with a warming of 4 degrees Celsius, the World Bank predicts sizzling heat during the summer in some regions. Compared to current weather anomalies, each summer month will be significantly hotter, which threatens the lives of people in the Middle East, Africa and the Mediterranean countries. Many coastal cities will be completely flooded with water. Most likely, people will be forced to leave the low-lying island territories. Due to global climate change, hundreds of millions (and possibly several billion) will become refugees and internally displaced persons. Most of the southern areas will be uninhabitable. This is why environmentalists are pushing for population decline. Although it might seem to many that these people simply hate children.
A whole philosophical section is devoted to this issue
If you think that those who want to lower the birth rate must necessarily be misanthropists, you may be deeply mistaken. It works the other way too. Concern about climate change is also dictated by thoughts about human life, not only in the future, but in the existing one. A whole philosophical section is devoted to this issue, which shows the difference between the almost identical concepts of "making people happy" and "making (reproducing) happy people."
When you feed the hungry, comfort the suffering, or prevent suicide attempts, you will improve the well-being of the living. But when you reproduce offspring, first of all, you think about the well-being of your children in the future. You take on the responsibility of feeding your offspring, taking care of it, developing, teaching and educating. Many of us wish our children a secure, comfortable existence, and all our actions are dictated by this simple desire. Let us summarize: in the first case, you make the living people happy, in the second case, you add one more (or several) happy people to the existing ones.
Which cup will outweigh?
Some philosophers believe that it is more noble to make living people happy than to their detriment to reproduce other happy people. Those who already exist on the planet also have their own needs and desires, and their lives are also valuable. If the reproduction of other people endangers the existence of the living, why might this be justified? This is where the true priorities against life are.
Economically
Here is a strong argument from opponents of the theory: people are not only consumers, they are also producers of consumer goods. Many wonderful things and discoveries are made by brilliant people. The problem is that the Earth has limited resources. And expanding production will further increase greenhouse gas emissions. Even ingenious designs to remove carbon from the air cannot solve this problem. And it doesn't matter at all that geniuses live among others on Earth, because they are also consumers.
Well, if you think that another economic crisis will overtake the Earth with a fall in the birth rate, take a look at the experience of developed countries (Japan, Italy and Germany). All these states have low birth rates, but have good rates of economic development. An ever-expanding economy can wreak havoc on the planet's already limited resources. As you can imagine, the population cannot grow forever. The challenge for the people is to protect the economy while regulating the rate of population growth. This problem should not be ignored, because the moment may come when nature will revolt. And this will come as a surprise to many.
Inga Kaisina