“Those that are not having children have no part in the future, so they really have no say in the matter.” I couldn’t disagree with you more. Whether by choice or circumstance, anyone not having children is providing a greater benefit for the future children that others are having; not to mention a greater chance for all non-human life to survive and possibly thrive. If they are making the conscious decision not to have children, for whatever reason, they should be commended. And those that have had no more than 2 kids should also be applauded. I have one child and he is pursuing an environmental career that he hopes will benefit all creatures, great and small. He has expressed a desire to not have kids, but who knows, he may change his mind. He cares about all life on this planet and for him, not having kids is the single greatest contribution he feels that he can make to the survival of the flora and fauna (including humans) on this planet. So, he gets a say, as we all do.
"First, anyone claiming they know what a) the planet, b) civilization, or c) our population will look like over the next several centuries is guaranteed to be wrong."
*proceeds to write an entire article about what the planet, civilisation, and our population will look like in the future*
But either way, the future belongs to the children of those having children. Those that are not having children have no part in the future, so they really have no say in the matter.
Well, I'd say the world belongs to all of life, including the kids. And whoever now is working to make that world a more vibrant place is welcome to do so.
Indeed. That's my sense as well. I think there is a somewhat larger, somewhat more rational contingent of pronatalists who are decent people and genuinely bewildered by the prospect of population reverting back toward what it's been for most of our species' history. And that's a real conundrum, if only because we've painted ourselves into this planet-disrupting overpopulated corner, and are still acting like the only way out is to keep painting...
Well written, Jason. Alan Weisman's book "Countdown" is about population growth/overgrowth, very good read. But I particularly like the "no going anywhere until we've cleaned up after ourselves" perspective you go into here. Like, what's the point of flinging ourselves around the solar system if we don't know how to handle the fertile planet we've already got -- not to mention it's the one our bodies evolved on! Human physiology isn't just going to automatically adapt to other atmospheres, gravities, etc. Astronauts already have physical problems after being out in space for a few weeks or months.
Thank you, Nia. I've barely scratched the topic, including a few points that even the more rational pronatalists offer. But I just found my thread and followed it as best I could. And thanks for the human physiology point. That's what the next few decades of space optimism research will focus on, I think.
I think you'll like the op-ed I mention at the end of the piece. I discovered it at about 2 a.m. last night, so didn't have time to weave it in, but the research on the link between paternalistic societies and steep population decline is notable.
We may have 10 Einstiens and Mozarts but we will also have 10 Hitlers, Pol Pot's and Trumps to content with. In 2026 the earth will have reached a point it can no longer feed it's population. This despite advances in food production through technical means, verticle farming for example. Through climate change we have lost major areas of fertile agricultural lands and once rising sea levels catches up, food will be available to those that can pay for it. The rest, the world can't support. Economies, healthcare, ecological stability are words never spoken in starving countries. Written several papers on the anthropocene to the holoscene, Capitalism vs Climate Change, Harvesting Hope: Urban Agriculture in a Changing Climate. There is no humanity when it comes to food scarcity.
You make a great point about the bad coming with the good, Bill. We get the full array of human behavior from whatever sized population we have. And, arguably, the consequences of the worst behavior are intensified by the size of the population they affect.
And yes, there's so much that will challenge food systems in the next few years and decades.
Isn’t it so dang frustrating to have to debunk the entangled theories of false statements these days?! Thanks for this terrific essay. So many good points to highlight. Here’s just one to which I want to add an exclamation mark: “Here’s a proposal: Let’s first create economies that provide a decent standard of living, complete with good food, education, income, housing, healthcare, and ecological stability to every child and their family, everywhere. After that, let’s see whether civilization is still somehow desperately short of Einsteins and Mozarts. Let’s nurture all we have and all we are before fantasizing about somehow thriving by multiplying and leaving an exhausted Earth to die in the lifeless void.” Amen!
Thank you, Leah. The debunking is endless, which is not a coincidence. "Flood the zone with shit," as Steve Bannon says, in order to get the cruelty done that they want done. Also, something I've written about before is Brandolini's Law (a.k.a. The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle), which states that it takes ten times as much energy to debunk disinformation as it does to create it.
Thank you, Diana. It's an idea I would dearly love to see embraced by governance everywhere, but we'll just see what we can accomplish in the world we have, right?
This is an extraordinary post -- the clarity and range is as sobering as it is impressive. So few people strangling the fate of so many -- humans and non-humans alike.
Thank you very much, Jan. Such kind words. And yes, the size of our cultural roadblocks (these small dark clusters of men) is so much smaller than the mass of well-intentioned people simply trying to live decent lives in service of their communities, both human and other. As organizers spend their lives trying to help us understand, we have all the power we need in our numbers, if we could only point in the right directions.
You put fotth great arguments against pronatalism and I agree with them all. It would require a drastic decrease in our numbers before I would start getting worried. Maybe a global population of 750 million would do fine, but only if combined with a biocentric rather than anthropocentric cultural mindset. Pronatalism as currently espoused by this administration is both militaristic and thinly disguised racism. Boys will be boys and humans will be humans. I dispair of us ever getting our act together.
Thank you, Michael. Smaller and more biocentric, indeed. Start with a planetary boundaries framework as we reduce in numbers and impact, then evolve into economies that are subsets of ecologies.
“Those that are not having children have no part in the future, so they really have no say in the matter.” I couldn’t disagree with you more. Whether by choice or circumstance, anyone not having children is providing a greater benefit for the future children that others are having; not to mention a greater chance for all non-human life to survive and possibly thrive. If they are making the conscious decision not to have children, for whatever reason, they should be commended. And those that have had no more than 2 kids should also be applauded. I have one child and he is pursuing an environmental career that he hopes will benefit all creatures, great and small. He has expressed a desire to not have kids, but who knows, he may change his mind. He cares about all life on this planet and for him, not having kids is the single greatest contribution he feels that he can make to the survival of the flora and fauna (including humans) on this planet. So, he gets a say, as we all do.
"First, anyone claiming they know what a) the planet, b) civilization, or c) our population will look like over the next several centuries is guaranteed to be wrong."
*proceeds to write an entire article about what the planet, civilisation, and our population will look like in the future*
Fair enough... though I think I was less futurist than precautionary.
Yeah, I meant it more tongue in cheek...
But either way, the future belongs to the children of those having children. Those that are not having children have no part in the future, so they really have no say in the matter.
Well, I'd say the world belongs to all of life, including the kids. And whoever now is working to make that world a more vibrant place is welcome to do so.
Musk and his "co-thinkers" mean not enough white babies. Others don't count.
Indeed. That's my sense as well. I think there is a somewhat larger, somewhat more rational contingent of pronatalists who are decent people and genuinely bewildered by the prospect of population reverting back toward what it's been for most of our species' history. And that's a real conundrum, if only because we've painted ourselves into this planet-disrupting overpopulated corner, and are still acting like the only way out is to keep painting...
Well written, Jason. Alan Weisman's book "Countdown" is about population growth/overgrowth, very good read. But I particularly like the "no going anywhere until we've cleaned up after ourselves" perspective you go into here. Like, what's the point of flinging ourselves around the solar system if we don't know how to handle the fertile planet we've already got -- not to mention it's the one our bodies evolved on! Human physiology isn't just going to automatically adapt to other atmospheres, gravities, etc. Astronauts already have physical problems after being out in space for a few weeks or months.
Thank you, Nia. I've barely scratched the topic, including a few points that even the more rational pronatalists offer. But I just found my thread and followed it as best I could. And thanks for the human physiology point. That's what the next few decades of space optimism research will focus on, I think.
I think you'll like the op-ed I mention at the end of the piece. I discovered it at about 2 a.m. last night, so didn't have time to weave it in, but the research on the link between paternalistic societies and steep population decline is notable.
More means better, not.
Pronatalists fooled, lie, harm.
Nurture all we are.
We may have 10 Einstiens and Mozarts but we will also have 10 Hitlers, Pol Pot's and Trumps to content with. In 2026 the earth will have reached a point it can no longer feed it's population. This despite advances in food production through technical means, verticle farming for example. Through climate change we have lost major areas of fertile agricultural lands and once rising sea levels catches up, food will be available to those that can pay for it. The rest, the world can't support. Economies, healthcare, ecological stability are words never spoken in starving countries. Written several papers on the anthropocene to the holoscene, Capitalism vs Climate Change, Harvesting Hope: Urban Agriculture in a Changing Climate. There is no humanity when it comes to food scarcity.
You make a great point about the bad coming with the good, Bill. We get the full array of human behavior from whatever sized population we have. And, arguably, the consequences of the worst behavior are intensified by the size of the population they affect.
And yes, there's so much that will challenge food systems in the next few years and decades.
Isn’t it so dang frustrating to have to debunk the entangled theories of false statements these days?! Thanks for this terrific essay. So many good points to highlight. Here’s just one to which I want to add an exclamation mark: “Here’s a proposal: Let’s first create economies that provide a decent standard of living, complete with good food, education, income, housing, healthcare, and ecological stability to every child and their family, everywhere. After that, let’s see whether civilization is still somehow desperately short of Einsteins and Mozarts. Let’s nurture all we have and all we are before fantasizing about somehow thriving by multiplying and leaving an exhausted Earth to die in the lifeless void.” Amen!
Thank you, Leah. The debunking is endless, which is not a coincidence. "Flood the zone with shit," as Steve Bannon says, in order to get the cruelty done that they want done. Also, something I've written about before is Brandolini's Law (a.k.a. The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle), which states that it takes ten times as much energy to debunk disinformation as it does to create it.
10 times as much energy to debunk? No wonder we're all exhausted. Thanks for persevering!
This is the section that spoke loudly to me also!!
Thank you, Diana. It's an idea I would dearly love to see embraced by governance everywhere, but we'll just see what we can accomplish in the world we have, right?
Well said!
This is an extraordinary post -- the clarity and range is as sobering as it is impressive. So few people strangling the fate of so many -- humans and non-humans alike.
Thank you very much, Jan. Such kind words. And yes, the size of our cultural roadblocks (these small dark clusters of men) is so much smaller than the mass of well-intentioned people simply trying to live decent lives in service of their communities, both human and other. As organizers spend their lives trying to help us understand, we have all the power we need in our numbers, if we could only point in the right directions.
You put fotth great arguments against pronatalism and I agree with them all. It would require a drastic decrease in our numbers before I would start getting worried. Maybe a global population of 750 million would do fine, but only if combined with a biocentric rather than anthropocentric cultural mindset. Pronatalism as currently espoused by this administration is both militaristic and thinly disguised racism. Boys will be boys and humans will be humans. I dispair of us ever getting our act together.
Thank you, Michael. Smaller and more biocentric, indeed. Start with a planetary boundaries framework as we reduce in numbers and impact, then evolve into economies that are subsets of ecologies.