CLIMATE CHANGE
Should we control our population size?
The controversial debate needs to be opened urgently. Childbearing could be our single most selfish act at this point in our history
Prince Harry and Meghan made headlines by announcing that they won’t be having any more children, in order to minimise their impact on the environment. They have already been criticised for spreading panic and infringing on peoples’ right to have a family.
The critics of the royal family’s announcement should perhaps turn the focus inwards for a minute, and recognise that they, we, are members of a species who has systematically infringed on millions of other species’ rights to have a family, and to even continue to exist. We exterminated them.
So the way we view the “children / no children” debate really depends on our perspective: we can either have the human, myopic vision through the “me” lens of our species, or the perspective of the planet’s wellbeing as a whole, which includes ourselves and all the other species that we haven’t killed yet. Having children is a human right, but what if that human right is killing the planet?
This is not a moral or a human rights question. It is about balancing Earth
We are the only species with no predators on this planet. This automatically means that, given that nature cannot control our population anymore, we are the ones responsible for maintaining our numbers at a level that is sustainable for the planet. The way to do this is to limit how many children we are having.
So this is not a moral issue, and not one of personal freedom or the right to have a family. This is an issue of necessity. It is about the planet being able to feed all of our children. It is about leaving space for the other creatures on earth so that we have a healthy planet to live in. It is about having enough resources to support us all.
Having fewer children is also an extremely effective way of tackling climate change
Given how difficult it is to persuade humans to reduce their carbon emissions, something that takes decades, why not do the easiest thing: have less humans. Given the lack of momentum in our CO2 emissions reduction, limiting childbirths should be seriously considered.
People do not want to make sacrifices to their lifestyles and consumption patterns. But continuing our current lifestyle as well as having a family is unsustainable. Something has to give, something in our lifestyle needs to change.
Reversing ecological damage. We need an age of Human Retreat
As the climate endgame approaches, the debate about our population could be an opportunity to usher in an age of planned human retreat to give nature some space. Rather than simply capping our population, we could also plan a slow depopulation across the world so that nature recovers.
Because of their massive population, humans are using almost half of the earth’s landmass for agriculture and habitation. Reducing our population would allow us to re-forest large areas of former agricultural land, which are desperately needed as vital carbon sinks.
Sea level rise 2050. Where will your children be?
But there are also arguments about not having any children at all, given the uncertainty of our world ahead. Famine and conflict are a distinct possibility, and prospective parents should perhaps think twice before deciding.
Given people live much longer now, children born in 2019 will most likely still be alive in 2100, a time when severe impacts are expected. Sea level rise, massive population migrations, political conflict, food shortages due to destroyed agricultural lands, are all possible. It is a very unpredictable world ahead of us.
Although this is not top of mind in the general population, those closer to the data, such as climate scientists, are taking our future climate into consideration as they plan their lives in the following decades. Some believe that the world will be in such turmoil, that bringing children into this world is a risk they do not want to take with their conscience.
In a recent Australian documentary, climate scientists in the country admitted that they have already been planning where they will move when the world gets warmer, and debating whether they will have or not have children. Some of them have been putting off raising a family until more data becomes available.
The debate needs to happen
Greta Thunberg, the young climate activist from Sweden, often points out that humanity should be panicking. As she puts it, we should be acting “like the house is on fire”. It is the fear of this panic that is preventing us from discussing what is a real, and present danger: that we don’t know what type of world our children will live in, and that this has repercussions on family planning. It is deeply unfortunate that there is almost a moratorium on the population debate due to its sensitive and controversial nature. But there is nothing controversial here. Reality is hitting us, and rather than avoiding issues that upset people, it is best that people become upset and face the issues.
Our children know what is coming better than us, and they know we are all in this burning house together, with no escape route. Do we want to give birth to even more children in a burning house?
Maybe Earth should be our child for a while, until we can nurse it back to fitness.
You can follow me on Twitter @99blackbaloons
You might also like:
