ARTICLES

NEWS

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC

Contents © 2000
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

This is the Way the World Ends...

Not with a Bang, but a Condom

By Christopher Zehnder

There may be a danger to human life greater than nuclear war. This danger is birth control. Heralded as instruments of liberation, promoted as assurances of humanity's very survival in an over-peopled world, condoms, the pill, IUDs may, it appears, in the end cause our demise.

An exaggeration? Perhaps not. On March 17 of this year, the United Nations (an agency not known for its pro-natalist policies) issued a document entitled, "Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Aging Populations?" According to this document, between 1995 and 2050, several nations may face a new problem: underpopulation. According to the report, declining populations threaten Japan and most of the countries of Europe. A number of nations (including Bulgaria, Estonia and Italy) will lose between a quarter and a third of their population, leading to an ageing population. "For instance," said a United Nations press release, "in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio -- i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person -- will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2." One way to shore up such shrinking, ageing populations, said the United Nations report, is increased foreign immigration. Even the United States, whose population, says the report, is expected to increase by a quarter, will still need 1,300 immigrants per million inhabitants a year to maintain the size of their working population.

After reading the United Nations press release, I was curious to discover what population control advocates thought about the report. I spoke to Giuseppe Bertani, research scientist, microbiologist and a volunteer for, and currently chairman of, the Pasadena/San Gabriel Valley chapter of Zero Population Growth. Bertani noted that the United Nations report "detects current trends and extrapolates them rather far into the future as a guide to governments in seeing what might happen, not what will happen." Thus, he said, "it would be a mistake to assume that a new trend will last forever."

In fact, Bertani said he believes that countries whose populations are declining are experiencing a phenomenon of "overshoot." Though there are local underpopulation problems, on the global level, he said, "the overriding problem is that of overpopulation. Bertani said, even when and if a stable population level is reached, afterwards "there will be fluctuations in numbers, depending on numerous factors. These fluctuations will be stronger at the local level. They are expected to occur, given the complexity of the underlying social phenomena. They are commonly observed in natural populations."

To illustrate his point, Bertani referred to the example of sheep on the island of Soay off the coast of Scotland. There, abandoned by farmers who left the island a century ago, the sheep reproduced and increased as long as there was enough grass to graze. When grass was less plentiful, their population decreased. According to scientists who study the sheep, said Bertani, the sheep population of Soay "fluctuates roughly in cycles taking place over periods of five to ten years, between perhaps 200 and 600."

To get another view on the subject, I spoke to Scott Weinberg of the Front Royal, Virginia-based Population Research Institute, a group that opposes population control. Weinberg, a Catholic, thinks that United Nations' document, "Replacement Migration," significantly challenges the presuppositions of population control groups like Zero Population Growth. In particular, Weinberg thinks the evidence is against Bertani's contention that underpopulation represents a mere fluctuation in population. "Birthrates in the developing world are below replacement and plummeting," said Weinberg. "The United Nations projects a U.S. Total Fertility Rate of 1.5 by 2020," said Weinberg. "This is both a goal and a projection." Currently, the United States fertility rate stands at 1.99.

Weinberg assigns the cause of underpopulation to the promotion of population control, which he called "public enemy number one." IUDs, the pill, and abortion, said Weinberg, "take populations out at the knees. Zero Population Growth tells us that the optimum world population is below 3 billion. By analogy, the population controllers would prompt a stock market crash to cut the world's population in half."

Bertani, however, doubts that groups promoting population control are the chief culprits. "Much more likely causes of this," he said, "are the greater participation of women in work outside the family, the longer formal education period of the youth, the increased mobility of families, the greater availability of enjoyable distractions outside the family (tourism, sports, TV, etc.), etc."

Bertani admitted that "a serious problem with declining population numbers," he said, "has to do with the support for the elderly. However, we are faced with this problem independent of a decline in the number of births, simply as a result of the fact that -- thanks to medical and scientific progress -- we now live longer. Thus the proportion of old people in the population is continuously increasing. On the other hand, old people are now healthier than they used to be: it is not unreasonable to expect a greater productive engagement in society on the part of the elderly."

Though some countries face an underpopulation crisis, Bertani nevertheless maintains that overpopulation remains a threat to the world. "We must persist," he said, "in keeping global stabilization of world population as the necessary presupposition for the future happiness of all humanity." Overpopulation problems, said Bertani, "are both global and local. Quite possibly a country might be -- relatively speaking -- underpopulated. For example, both the United States and Australia, among the industrialized countries, could support larger populations than they now have. Is it to their advantage to encourage such development? I doubt it very much. Is there any evidence that a nation of 50 million is happier than one of 10?"

There is no such evidence, I answered, if one considers only numbers. However, I asked Bertani, might it not be in society's interest to encourage (or, at least, not discourage) larger families since children in larger families learn, among other things, sacrifice, generosity, and the ability to distinguish the essentials? "I fully share your feeling that children from larger families may be happier and better adjusted," Bertani replied. "However," he said, "numbers are numbers: if the average number of children per family is persistently more than 2.3 (this figure will vary a bit, depending on the rate of survival of the children, etc.), the population will increase continuously. At some point in time it will outstrip the resources available and the rate of death will increase. (Take, for instance, the example of the sheep of Soay.) In our society, increased death rates may take the form of starvation, wars, epidemics, etc., all very unpleasant things. On the other hand, we certainly can reproduce to some extent the good effects on a child of being a member of a large family, by adopting more communal ways of life. This is already occurring to some extent in the forms of child day care, of families that decide to share living quarters, etc. I'm sure there will be interesting developments along these directions in the future."

"Most ZPG members," said Bertani, "view as desirable a stabilization of the total world population at a level well below the maximum allowed by world resources (and by the energy irradiating from the sun), so that eventual local or global fluctuations in these resources will not be totally catastrophic for the human race." How would this stabilization be carried out? "Talk about 'policies' in regard to population is rather tricky," said Bertani. "What a representative government can do in this area is rather limited, and it better be. A government certainly cannot 'freeze' population at a certain level. But what every government can do is to collect adequate statistical information on these problems, facilitate its diffusion among the public, and encourage public debate on these topics."

According to a Zero Population Growth article, "Population and the Environment," published on their website, "an average American's environmental impact is 30 to 50 times that of the average citizen of a developing country such as India." If Americans, I asked Bertani, consume, per capita, far more than the rest of the world, doesn't this show that the rate of consumption of natural resources is not directly proportional to population size (the greater population consuming more, the smaller population, less) but to lifestyle patterns?

"Of course," said Bertani, "consumption is a function of lifestyle. I am sure that here in the United States and in much of Western Europe we could -- if we had the will -- reduce our consumption by a fair amount. Still, a reduction in consumption will moderate the problem temporarily, but will not solve it. It is a matter of simple mathematics. True, human ingenuity might certainly help us to stretch these limits: but how far? How far can we extend inhabitable land? Where do we find more fresh water? If we get it from the sea, we have to use still more energy. Can we stop breathing to avoid producing too much carbon dioxide that leads to Earth warming? Can we create matter?"

When I asked Weinberg the same question, he replied: "the United States actually produces about 25% of the world's goods but consumes about 20%. The difference is called international trade. I'm all for recycling; but neither should we exterminate the unborn. America's industry is cleaner and more productive than ever. Presently, the United States' agricultural industry is in crisis because production exceeds worldwide consumption. In the future, if our population plummets, labor surpluses will lapse and our economy and standard of living will also collapse. The problem of future underpopulation in the United States could be solved with post-abortion counseling alone, which reduces second abortion rates and would add a potential 20 million indigenously born by 2030, when the United States population is projected to begin declining from 301 million."

Weinberg also argues that population increase may lead to more environmentally friendly farming practices. "A greener high-yield farming industry," he said, "depends on a surplus of consumers in the developed world, because this generates investment into bio-technology. A clean environment is very important, very necessary, very expensive -- but absolutely possible. Unfortunately, Western agriculture is neurotic because of a collapse in the number of consumers in the developed world. The developing world has a surplus of mouths to feed, yet insufficient social infrastructure to sustainably develop the land."

Might not the problems associated with overpopulation in poorer countries arise, as Pope John Paul II has suggested, from poor distribution of the goods of the earth, I asked Bertani? It is a lack of "solidarity" between first world nations and developing nations that leads to poverty, not population. Bertani replied that he "totally" agrees with Pope John Paul II "when he blames a lack of solidarity between first world nations and developing nations, and when he encourages a lowering of the barriers that separate men and nations. I also believe that a great deal of the problems of overpopulation originate both from lack of education in backward countries and from excessive greed in 'advanced' (educated?) countries. Nevertheless, it is irresponsible, as some Catholics still do, to trivialize the question of numbers. Clearly, the citizens of the poor, overpopulated countries must recognize the necessity of significant reductions in their reproduction rates (whether through abstinence, contraception, education of women, postponement of marriage, etc.), if they want to be helped constructively."

Scott Weinberg said, he, too agreed "with the pontiff on this one." Population control "or international 'family planning,'" said Weinberg, "has sometimes been compared to class warfare."

Weinberg and Bertani agree on another issue -- that the world population seems to be stabilizing. "The Population Research Institute states," said Weinberg, "that population controllers have overplayed their hand by claiming that the world's population will double again, in the face of United Nations Population Division statistics which project the world's population peeking in 2040 at about 7.5 billion."

What is the cause of this eventual stabilization? "Socio-economic development," said Weinberg. "When nations develop, fertility rates decline naturally. Couples marry at a later age: abstinence is often the preferred choice."

But if economic development leads to stabilized populations, how does it do so? Isn't it, I asked Weinberg, that, in the more prosperous countries, couples decide on smaller families because they want a more prosperous, luxurious lifestyle? Such a desire leads women into the workplace, leads couples to be less generous in bringing new life into the world, leads, finally, to the use of contraceptives, the instruments of population control. "This is true," said Weinberg. "My point is that development is the best contraceptive, for all the reasons you stated -- except for artificial contraception, which mutates stability into collapse."

Still, the model of development leading to a greater affluence that leads, in turn, to stabilized populations, because families have fewer children, does not have the consistent witness of history. It has been shown that, during the 1950s, the birthrate among Catholics rose more among well-educated Catholic women than among those who only completed high school. I asked Weinberg, should it happen that the world experienced a new springtime of the Catholic Faith, such that even the better-educated, more prosperous Catholics began to have large families, mightn't we then face a surge in world population, and not a stabilization? Mightn't we then face the dangers referred to by Bertani?

Weinberg said that such a surge in population "would be a good thing." Stabilization, he said, "is a relative term. It is a relation between things like consumption and production. However, [stabilization as a category] tends towards the materialistic and the pessimistic. The optimist believes that human ingenuity, along with resources, are virtually unlimited -- and people are the greatest resource. Over the past hundred years, America's population surged from 76 million to over 270 million. America has never been so prosperous. Everybody now agrees that Thomas Malthus, Anglican minister turned prophet of doom, was wrong. He came up with his central idea after hearing that the American population was doubling every 25 years, or about 3 per cent a year, and questioned how such growth could be sustained. Won't America's population (growing geometrically) eventually outrun its food supply (growing arithmetically)? The answer, as history demonstrated, was no. With a free market economy, the rule of law, limited government and constant innovation, American farmers consistently produced more food than the growing number of American consumers could consume. So have farmers worldwide. Technology has done a series of end runs around imagined limits in food supply. I agree with Julian Simon: the world's resources are virtually unlimited, and human ingenuity is fascinating.

"What is man's ultimate end?" continued Weinberg. "When Catholics have large families, they are doing much more than enriching this world. Unfortunately, in dissent of Humanae Vitae, nominal Catholics view the so-called right of parents 'to regulate the number and spacing of their children' as license to adopt artificial means of birth control; yet the Vatican's delegate to the United Nations, who accepts this right, rejects such means. The point is, sex is good, marriage is better, and large families are the best. Kennedy-era Catholics are turning, and a Catholic surge is helping to counteract the consequences of underpopulation."

TOP