COSMOS magazine


Share |


Opinion

A plague of people

13 May 2010

The resources we spend trying to save endangered species would be better spent trying to limit human population growth, argues Roger Short.


I will never forget the moment, back in the early 1960's, when Sir Peter Scott, founder of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), came to visit me one evening in my laboratory at the University of Cambridge, where I was studying reproduction in African elephants (why do they have intra-abdominal testes?).

He said "You know, when we first set up WWF, our objective was to save endangered species from extinction. But we have failed completely; we haven't managed to save a single one. If only we had put all that money into condoms, we might have done some good."

I was flabbergasted! But of course he was right, because it is the habitat destruction caused by the ever-increasing human population that is the ultimate threat to all our wildlife. That remark was a turning-point in my career. I vowed to devote the rest of my life to trying to find new ways of controlling human population growth.

Fifty years later, I must admit that I too have failed. Australia has the highest rate of mammalian extinctions of any country in the world, thanks to human habitat destruction in our fragile environment. The Asian elephant, the Hindu God Ganesha, is now an endangered species, with only about 30,000 left in the wild, thanks to deforestation.

When I was born in 1930, the world's population was only two billion. Today, it has just passed 6.8 billion, and is expected to reach 9.1 billion by 2050. As a microcosm of this global scenario, Australia's current population of 22 million will reach 35 million by 2050 if our politicians have their way.

Every economist believes that growth must be good, whereas every ecologist knows that there must be limits to growth. (Why do elephants breed so slowly? They use breastfeeding, Mother Nature's contraceptive, to keep their births spaced at least 4 years apart).

So what are the factors currently limiting our population growth? We have abandoned prolonged breastfeeding in exchange for Infant Formula, thereby increasing the potential birth rate to one a year (it used to be four years, like elephants), and we have greatly prolonged life expectancy through the conquest of disease. Where will it end?

We have been suddenly brought up short by the realisation that the ultimate constraint to excessive human population growth is the sky. Our rape of the natural environment through deforestation, burning of non-renewable fossil fuels, the methane emissions from the farts and belches of our domestic ruminants, and the unquenchable thirst of our modern lifestyles has resulted in global warming. Left uncontrolled, we could self-destruct. So what is the solution?

It is so simple; we have already invented a pill that will prevent global warming - the oral contraceptive pill. A recent study by Thomas Wire of the London School of Economics has shown that each $7 spent on meeting the unmet demand for Family Planning between 2010 and 2050 would reduce CO2 emissions by over a tonne, which is four times more cost-effective than any conventional solution.

If women the world over were given easy access to the contraceptive pill, every birth could become a wanted birth, and human population growth would almost come to a halt. But getting that simple message across to our self-seeking politicians and economists will probably take another lifetime, and so the Asian elephant will become extinct after all.

Follow COSMOSmagazine on TwitterJoin COSMOSmagazine on Facebook

Roger Short is the Wexler Professorial Fellow, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology and Adjunct Professor, Zoology, Royal Women's Hospital.


Readers' comments

Religion won't allow it

the plague of people is certainly the most dangerous issue facing all species and indeed the life of the planet itself. BUT, try to get that across to a "religious person" and you get attacked. They cling so tightly to their antiquated beliefs that I don't think population growth will be stopped. We will keep reproducing in the name of "God" until we destroy the planet. Governments are the puppets of the religious belief system. Until society decides religious "truisms" no longer apply, we are doomed.

Belief that we are threatening life on earth is pseudo-religious

I see little difference between the end of the world prophecies peddled by the religious community and the end of the world prophecies peddled by conservationists. Life will be just fine. Some species will go (probably including us), but we are not the center of the universe and using our fate to define the fate of all life on earth is faithful in the extreme.

Kind regards,

Matthew Watkinson

Religion

Next thing your going to tell us that religion told the oil companies to lay pipes on the bottom
of the sea bed. And the government shouldn't have required the oil companies to have a sound
plan to stop an oil leak if one should ever happen before a permit was granted.
What about Russia and China. Both are athiest countries. China one child policy has been in place
for decades yet they have huge pollution problems in there cities.
Population has nothing to do with it. It's anti religion that's the problem. On average religious
people have more self control. Take away self control and people become greedy consuming pigs.
I come from a family of five children. Today the average family has 1.8 children yet their home is 40%
larger. Our family had 1 car. Today their have minimum 2 and stats show the norm is near 3 cars.
If you live in a home bigger than your parents you are a hypocrite. If your household has more than
1 car you are a hypocrite. If you don't have solar panels on your house you are a hypocrite. If don't have
a low flush toilet you are a hypocrite. If you don't grow all or some of you own food indoors (with or
without hydroponics) you are a hypocrite. The list goes on and on.
As a "religious person" I see the "non-religious person" as the problem. Because there like you;
blame religion. But than you look at their life style. And their nothing but greedy consuming hypocrites.

Religious people breed.

It's part of the Ponzi scheme that every religious meme has:

1. These magical myths will save you!
2. It's your duty to save others!
3. We need more followers. Offspring are a blessing!

Christian

There is nothing "religious" about destroying our planet, our environment, all based on misanthropic greed and lack of ability to self-control our own reproduction. The Anglican Church of Australia has recently condemned population growth as stealing from future generations,and not in our interests. If we maximise our "carrying capacity" now, where will the next generation be? The biggest threats now facing our planet can all be linked back to the stresses and impacts of the global population blowout!

Hormones aren't the answer

While I agree that curbing the growth of population would drastically cut down on how fast our planet would be destroyed, I don't think oral contraceptives are the be-all end all. They are expensive, require a prescription, and definitely aren't for everyone. And studies have found that there are already huge amounts of hormones in our drinking water from expelling them in our urine, and this could be why girls are starting puberty far earlier than they used to. Non-hormonal IUDs are far more economical in the long term, and require far less maintenance, while being just as, if not more effective.

We have me the enemy and he is us.

Human beings universally have difficulty acknowledging that they are responsible for the mistakes that negatively effect their life. In the instant case of global destruction through over population we face the same dynamics with the future of humanity and all living creatures on the line. Throw in religion and the up hill struggle seems insurmountable. When the wise advocates of population control couch this solution in terms of saving money, creating wealth or, enhancing greed we will begin to see progress. Proper thinking human beings use rational arguments and approaches to solving problems. With the planet on the line the enlightened must focus on getting the job done even if it means new thinking to achieve it. After all we are asking the masses to re-think their belief system to stop breeding us to oblivion. The organization Zero Population Growth (ZPG)already exists therefore supporting it worth considering.

A plague of people

Why don't we just let nature(evolution, natural selection) take care of this business.

A plague of people

Simple: because natural selection is so unpleasant. Ask the dinosaurs.

Here's a better idea. Engineer a gene-altering virus that spreads a heritable trait as a highly contagious flu, which randomly, regardless of other genetic factors (to be fair), makes 90% of people inheriting it infertile. Eventually we have a stable population about 1/10th of what it is now.

Maybe the math is off, but you get the idea (not mine originally). The engineering hero can work out the fine tuning. The net result should be a reasonably sized, self-limiting population for the planet, arrived at painlessly, except for the whining of those who want more more people than the planet can carry. We're almost there, you know.

I'm tempted to start a non-profit foundation offering an award for the first to succeed at this. Of course, we'd all be lynched, probably because it's an excellent idea.

can't agree more..

i dont know you, but i like your thinking.. it's a great idea!!