Human Overpopulation - Fighting the Dictator

Rena Sherwood

Romania, 1990 - the dictator Nicole Ceausescu and his wife have been overthrown and executed less than a year ago. Lines of pregnant women wrap around the block waiting for a legal abortion. In 1966, Ceausescu had made having less than five children punishable with heavy fines. Despite the fact that the country was bankrupt through government corruption, each couple had to have at least five children. The women that day were grateful for the abortions. In their cases, the abortions were acts of mercy.

Although Ceausescu ordered couples to have five babies, he did not order them to keep them. The babies, if they had lived, could have wound up in one of Romania's notoriously horrific orphanages.

overpopAnd if the human population doesn't soon get under control, what happened in Romania could happen in every country in the world.

The Current Dictator

Ceausescu said that, "Anyone who avoids having children is a deserter who abandons the laws of national continuity." 

Instinct to breed is our internal dictator. For millions of years, this instinct worked pretty well for us. Because of high infant mortality, each couple had to have a barrel full of kids just to assure that one managed to reach breeding age. 

However, we have long passed the need to reproduce. In the 1900's, the entire human population of the world was estimated to be 1.6 billion.  It is now about 6.7 billion, although some scientists argue that there are more people than that. If the trends continue, by 2100 there will be at least 13.4 billion. Each baby brings with it a whole slew of stuff - from how much food it will consume in its lifetime, to whether there will be a job available to how much trash it will produce at the expense of every other species on the planet.

According to Joel Cohen's How Many People Can The Earth Support?, each person takes 2.1 hectares of land and water in order to live, although the average American needs 10 hectares of land. 

Meanwhile, nearly every other species on the planet is dwindling. Currently, one in four mammals is threatened and the seas are turning into dead zones. We are also running out of water. Our planet clearly has a finite amount of life that it can support.

Combating Overeating

overpopulationWe aren't doomed to drown in a sea of humanity. We do have the mental capacity to override our instincts when those instincts aren't working. Many people can do this when it comes to overeating, although there is still an epidemic of obesity in the world. The drive to eat is just as strong - if not stronger - than our drive to reproduce.

We are programmed to eat as much as possible because we don't know when we're going to get our next meal. Our instincts do not realize that we have easy access to food that was denied to our ancestors. 

We have the intelligence to deny our bodies the food it doesn't need in order to live. This is proof that we can do the same thing when it comes to changing any of our behaviors that negatively impact all other life on earth.

"Be Fruitful and Multiply"

The key to changing our attitudes about having as many children as we can before we become infertile is in changing our perspective of our own species. For thousands of years, we have wrongly believed that our species is somehow more important than any other species on the planet. We even made up religions to emphasize this point.  Every other living thing had to bow down to our greatness.

Time and time again, nature shows us that humans are not unique and are dependant on many other plant and animal species in order to survive. Humans are no better than any other species. It's time to stop speciesism if we want to save the environment, or at least salvage what's left of it due to human arrogance and error. 

Do we really want to doom our children to live in a world where there is only other people and no other animals? Without species diversity, the soul of this planet will be snuffed out. 

Why do we have so many kids, even though we know the kids will be worse off than we are? Because we are scared to die. We still have a primal hope that we will somehow live on through our offspring even after our physical deaths. We also have kids because we are selfish and are too cheap to hire domestic help. We want the kids to take care of us.

But, all this could be moot if we continue at our pace in wrecking the environment, killing of species and destroying the very air we breathe. However, we will not be able to make any permanent strides in helping the environment without looking at human overpopulation and our inner dictator.

6 comments

If you see any unhelpful comments, please let us know immediately.

C Robb W. 429°

I believe what sets us apart, if anything does, is our capacity to choose to deny our "inner dictator". It appears to be the only capacity that we, of all the species on earth, alone possess. Other species have language, culture, use tools, and even spirituality as can be argued in the case of elephants and their attention to their dead.

Should we not choose to deny the inner dictator we shall go the way of any other species that grows in numbers beyond which it's environment will support, another failed evolutionary experiment.

Written in October 2008

Rena (anonymous)

Elegantly put, but other species do curb their numbers when there is limited resources. Rabbit females can even reabsorb their babies. Species like the scrub jay pool together to raise just one chick instead of having every male and female have chicks. Some species of shark have cannibalistic babies, who eat each other isnside of the shark's womb until just one is left. So, there is no differce between animal and human. Which means we will go extinct as victims of our own success.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

Written in October 2008

C Robb W. 429°

Personally, I believe there is no difference. We all, every species, have the abilities given us by evolution. Much of humanity however would disagree and believe that humans are somehow intrinsically special and separate as set out by divine providence. My point is that we are doing everything in our power to disprove that assertion as evidenced by our insane drive to foul our own nest, something animals would never do.
However, in your example I think there is a difference between animals and humans, the mechanism.
The difference is we don't have such elegant evolutionary adaptations as the shark, the scrub jay, and rabbits, though drops in fertility worldwide may prove be so but are more likely due to pollutants, GM foods, drugs, and poor dietary choices. We must depend on our big brains, one of our evolutionary gifts, to make a conscious decision to limit our numbers. If we want to demonstrate some sort of specialness we must choose to save ourselves and the rich biodiverse ecosystems that tolerate and support us.

Written in October 2008

Sean (anonymous)

If we stopped eating animals we could support a very much larger population

Written in October 2008

Jon (anonymous)

Not eating animal will not cut the population down the problem is over population

Written in April

Michael Lewis (anonymous)

The human population in both rich and poor lands is slaughtering
millions of tons of living sentient beings for food each year
as if those living beings are so much dirt. In the rich countries
it is the bovines, cattle, poultry, swine and others. In the poor
countries it is the wildlife. Both domesticated animals and
wild animals are sentient beings.

Reproduction of living organisms is driven by principles as
fundamental as crystal growth. When hard and soft crystals,
of different substances, grow in the same solute, the harder
crystal merely crashes through and into the softer crystal.

That is one model of the male and female difference but it is
also a model for the way harder species consume or displace
other species. Human beings, with steel armor, have the
hardest net surface. Yet in this pattern of activity human
beings are largely insensate.

One ancient misconception was that when it became possible to
go to the Moon everybody would go there as if it was heaven.
The same refrain is now being promulgated, that when we can
fly to other star systems and find habitable planets, everybody
will go there. That's why there are so many suits. They are
all prototype spacesuits.

None of the other planets in this star system will support
human beings in significant numbers within this thousand
year period. Absolutely not within this century, and
probably not within the millennium. None will ever support
so much human life that most people can move to it.

Human beings will almost certainly not reach any other star
system in the next thousand years. Possibly signals will
be detected. Almost certainly no visitors from space will
come to this star system in the next thousand years either.

The image of aliens from other planets and other star systems
is frequently used as an excuse for military extravagance,
aggression, weapons system developments, and war. The media
are full of science fiction until it has become an idiotic
refrain tantamount to a fascism.

Michael Lewis
Seattle

Written in May

Add a comment
  • to get your picture next to your comment (not a member yet?).
  • (hint: logged in Celsias members don't have to fill in this)
  • Posted on Oct. 20, 2008. Listed in:

    See other articles written by Rena »

    6 comments


    Pledge to do these related actions

    Install a programmable thermostat, 361°

    Let the computer do the thinking for you by programming it to lower your house ...

    Reducing over population , 31°

    I had a vasectomy, before I had a child, this has saved 70 years worth ...

    Join Heal the Bay's Coastal Clean Up Day in Los Angeles - September 20th, 11°

    http://www.healthebay.org/volunteer/ccd/ Coastal Cleanup Day (CCD) began in 1985 and has grown into a huge annual ...

    Follow these related projects

    Aaltje van Zoelen

    Irkutsk, Russia, Russian Federation

    Featured Companies & Orgs