Conversion of the non-believers

There are few who manage to gain the public's attention and put forward the message of the need for a smaller population globally. The first in recent times was an American, Dr Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, who published "The Population Bomb" in 1968, forecasting famine from the way that food resources would be unable to cope with the anticipated growth of population. That he was as wrong, as was Thomas Malthus of an earlier era (both underestimated the timescale and the increasing technology factors), does not however disprove the point that population size remains a potent factor in the environment.

Governments and others, see that static or, worse, reducing population numbers can be prejudicial to the economic and political health of a country, by reason of falling markets, ageing populations (more costly pensions and lower potential support ratio) and diminished clout internationally. Increasing populations (and increasing affluence) have been traditionally a spur to economic growth and no government surely wishes to see a stop to such growth. This seems to be the reason why the population issue is a subject which few are keen to tackle.

Two other items militate against purposeful discussion of the topic: first that for many large businesses (with significant lobbying powers) self-interest predominates, and secondly few of those in political power are prepared to look far enough into the long-term. How many, for instance, are likely to give precedence to problems becoming manifest in 50 years time when problems of the next 12 months also presently and urgently need attention?

Population pressures are more clearly seen as affecting such countries as China and India (both also experiencing large growth in affluence) and the continents of South America and Africa (the latter blighted also by HIV/Aids). Yes, much attention should be paid to these areas, as their contribution to the environmental impact will affect us all. Additionally however, the "developed" countries in Europe and elsewhere (particularly USA) should accept the need for hauling back on population growth. Many of these are concerned at the recent phenomenon of a falling birthrate and compensate for this by allowing or encouraging increased net immigration (whether official or de facto). I consider this to be disastrous!

In the United Kingdom, where I reside, there are numbers who are reluctant to face the stark choice to be made. For instance, the previous Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, Professor Sir David King clearly sees the perils of climate change and the need for (inter alia) cuts in carbon emissions by this country and others. Yet Sir David is also much preoccupied by the problems caused by an ageing population (from longer life expectancy) and would appear to support the call for continuing net immigration to combat this effect. The connection of climate change and population size is still to be acknowledged even by such a distinguished scientist as this.

On the other hand, most recently, another has given an encouraging boost to the endeavours of those like-minded to me. In January 2006, Professor Chris Rapley (previously Director of the British Antarctic Survey and now Director of the Science Museum) has published a paper on the BBC web-site, arguing that the current global population is unsustainably high and complaining that population is the "Cinderella" issue of the environmental movement. He adjures that the welfare and quality of life of future generations will suffer. "If we believe that the size of the human 'footprint' is a serious problem, and there is much evidence for this, then a rational view would be that along with a raft of measures to reduce the footprint per person, the issue of population management must be addressed." Hooray for Professor Rapley!

What measures may be taken to correct the situation and why, are discussed on the next page.