the subject of population growth and it's consequences is not very popular, just about everywhere. And yet, it is the most central issue of the early XXI-st Century. Without understanding this issue, and it's consequences, one cannot understand the world around us, and thus cannot design remedies which are urgently needed. Without such understanding, and actions caused by it, the world may just slide into a nuclear war.



For the so called "Right", the subject of population growth is a leftist/globalist plot to encroach on their freedom of religion and/or impose godless communism upon the world. For, as we all know, God gave us the Earth so that we can multiply. We try to multiply less, we defy God's commands. Witness the surreal opposition to contraception, never mind abortion, among people of this political persuasion. Their answer to the population growth is "markets will fix everything". In fairness, the darkest predictions of the Club of Rome have not materialized, so one can always ridicule these as a proof positive that there is nothing to worry about as long as we obey God's commands and maintain free markets.



Not that the "Left" is more rational. Since most of the population growth occurred in developing countries, pointing out the consequences of this growth is interpreted as "blaming the victim". For, as we all know, one child born in America uses more resources than however many children born in Africa, so if only Americans stopped consuming all of their stuff, everything would be solved. Add Capitalism, Colonialism, Racism, the works, and you have a witches brew of thoroughly irrational behavior.



As usual, the reality is actually somewhere else, roughly in between.



First, population growth is not a moral issue, but a natural phenomenon, like snow or rain. Prior to the industrial revolution, mortality of the young was, on average, somewhere around 50%. Under these circumstances, societies had to develop cultural imperatives that would ensure high fertility. An average woman had to have 4+ children in her, rather short and perilous, lifetime, or else. In modern, developed societies the mortality of the young is, for statistical purposes, 0%. The change from 50% to 0% originated in advanced societies, occurred gradually, accompanied by urbanization, and allowed these societies to gradually adjust their cultures to this new reality. They have the opposite problem now, insufficient fertility to maintain the population. In developing societies, rapid decline in mortality collided with a high fertility culture, often in 1-2 generations, causing exponential population growth. Some developing countries controlled their population growth through rather harsh methods (China), while others (eg. India) tried these harsh methods and failed.



You do not blame the snow for falling on our heads, you build the roof. This is how we have to look at the population growth. We do not deny that snow exists, neither do we deny that too much snow without a shelter can kill us. We build a shelter.



The economic profession in the developed world has it's collective head stuck up the posterior part of their body, pretending that economic problems can be solved by playing with numbers in the computer. Global left has it's collective head stuck up the posterior part of their body by claiming that killing the developed countries will make everything better. It could restore the balance by raising that mortality back to 50%+, perhaps. I do not think this should be our goal, though.



We need fresh thinking and fresh honesty that return us back to reality. Very urgently.