Myths and Misconceptions
By Marilyn Hempel
For many centuries people believed the Earth was flat. The commonly held "truth," beautifully illustrated on our cover, was that if one sailed far enough, one would come to the edge of the Earth, and fall off. Early scientists and philosophers were persecuted for challenging this and other deeply held "truths," such as the idea that the Earth was the center of the universe. But society has changed. We now know that planets are not flat, and that the planet Earth is, by cosmic standards, a tiny blue marble in the vastness of space.
Modern society is not immune to cherished but erroneous beliefs--myths. One is that human numbers can, and should, grow forever. The corresponding reality is that the planet Earth does not grow. It may diversify, develop and change--but it does not grow. No creature or group of creatures on Earth has ever grown forever.
Another myth is that economic activities can, and must, grow forever. No new fresh water and arable land are materializing out of thin air. Human activities have evolved because the living planet makes it possible. Our economy, like human existence, in general, is a subsystem of our natural environment. Remarkably, many people believe the opposite. They believe that humans can somehow flourish without a healthy environment. They believe that our economy can exist without natural resources. In fact, this idea of "growth forever" has taken on such mythological proportions that there is near-panic when either a country's population or GNP are found to be not growing or growing too slowly. Stock markets fall when corporate growth reports are not "robust" enough. Ironically, wars help GNP grow among military powers and at the same time may temporarily reverse population growth in war-torn countries.
But wealth can also slow population growth. Lately, we've see a flurry of alarmist reports from western Europe decrying their shrinking population. Meanwhile, the world--and especially the United States--is testing the modern myth of "growth forever." The United States is the only rapidly growing industrialized nation. Americans are also by far the world's biggest consumers, in most categories. Therefore every added American is a special burden on the planet. As we continue to add people, use up raw materials, and create mountains of waste (much of it toxic) our grandchildren may well find themselves sailing off the edge, not of a flat Earth, but a ravaged one.
In fact, can you think of ANY of the world's large looming problems that can solved by adding MORE people? Global climate change? The great extinction of nonhuman life that is now underway? Competition for fresh water? For remaining oil deposits? One-third of the world lives in dire poverty (the third that is fastest growing). Will this help improve literacy? Restrain Terrorism? Reduce crime? AIDS and other plagues?
Step back, take a deep breath, and imagine a different scenario. Imagine a world that has embraced the idea of "enough." What if, instead of the 6.3 billion (and still growing) human population, humanity had stabilized at the 1950 level of 2.5 billion? Or the 1970 level of 3.6 billion? Wouldn't it be easier to figure out how to feed, house, educate and care for everyone? Providing we weren't completely greedy, wouldn't we have less sprawl, less congestion, less pollution, more fresh water, more wilderness, more forests, AND better farmland?
One example: right now the skyrocketing population of children has overcrowded many schools, leading to totally inadequate conditions for learning. In parts of the U.S., classrooms need to built (and good teachers hired) at the rate of one per day to keep up with the growth. That's not happening. Instead of always running to catch up, and never quite doing so, wouldn't it be wonderful to say to our grandchildren, "We solved those 20th century problems. Now we can take time to enjoy life."
There are few issues more complicated and emotional than those surrounding the term "population growth." Human population decisions are both personal and global in scope. They involve immediate decisions about ones own family, and long-term, often unknown, consequences for future families. All the more reason why they should be taken seriously, and why population policy decisions should be discussed openly. Isn't it a sign of maturity when people can rationally address the tough issues? Isn't it time this country led the world and showed that maturity? That is why the Population Press continues to encourage a national dialogue (not divisive argument!) on population issues based on the best available demographic data and sound science.
The Pop!ulation Press welcomes your comments:
|
