From Theodore Roszak, California State University
On what grounds does Fred Pearce assume that the size of the current human population is optimal (20 July, p 38)?
Throughout history the human race has survived and prospered at population levels lower than those of the 20th century. And this despite the fact that, in the pre-industrial past, far more labour was required to produce the bare necessities.
Pearce fears that the labour force will shrink as fertility declines. So what? The essence of industrialisation is the declining need for labour. Currently, many developed economies are finding it difficult to provide jobs for all their eligible workers.
As for the cost of social programmes for the elderly, Pearce overlooks the obvious trade-off. A smaller population means fewer children and so lower costs for their education and care. Baby booms are expensive because children are total dependents. Older people are not.
Advertisement
Add to this the long-term benefits that come from saving resources and decreasing pollution, and the case environmentalists make for zero-growth population looks pretty convincing. There isn’t a single ecological problem that won’t be ameliorated by a smaller population.
Finally, Pearce’s fear that older people are boringly “conservative” is simply a stereotype based on what the elderly have been in the past: powerless, marginal and insecure. Thanks to their numbers, wealth and education, the old will bear an unprecedented responsibility for political leadership. Rather than resisting that fact by hasty pro-natalist policies, we ought to begin recognising longevity as the greatest collective benefit yet to emerge from the Industrial Revolution. It is indeed the true wealth of nations. If this is a “population crash,” let’s make the most of it.
Hayward, California
