I n the last analysis, it all boils down to a population problem. Most of the ills covered in chapter 12 flow, directly or indirectly, from the fact that there are too many of us now on Earth, and soon there may be way too many. The unbridled multiplication of human beings allows our genetic heritage increasingly to produce its most damaging effects. Initiated many millennia ago, this trend has burgeoned with time, but without reaching tragic proportions as long as there remained on our planet virgin territories to occupy and fresh resources to exploit. The exponential pace of demographic expansion, linked with the extraordinary power of the human species to survive under adverse conditions thanks to its intellectual faculties, was bound to lead one day to a global crisis. Malthus predicted it two centuries ago. Today, it is happening.
If there is one action that humanity must urgently undertake to counter its now destructive genetic propensities, limiting its population is truly it. The alarm was sounded in the beginning of the previous century by such insightful precursors as the American Margaret Sanger (1883–1966), a pioneer of birth control, and, later, by her countryman Paul Ehrlich, whose book The Population Bomb created a sensation when it was published in 1968. Moves initiated in various parts of the world as a result of these warnings and advances in contraceptives, including the famous “pill,” first developed in 1951, have unfortunately had little effect so far. The number of humans on Earth has continued its rise (see fig. 12.1). And in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI solemnly reiterated, in October 2008, his unyielding condemnation of any deliberate method of limiting birth other than abstaining from sexual intercourse during the fertile period of the menstrual cycle. As recently as March 16, 2009, on the occasion of a trip to Africa, he again stressed his opposition to the use of condoms, even to prevent the spread of AIDS.
This, in my view, is more than regrettable; it is irresponsible. We need and should expect that the spiritual head of more than one billion human beings will take the initiative in such a critical circumstance, pronouncing it morally justified, if not commendable or, even, obligatory, to oppose the population increase by all reasonable means compatible with human health and dignity. The issue, of course, rests on what is to be considered “reasonable” and “compatible with human health and dignity,” in relation to the gravity of the crisis humanity is facing.
The most drastic means of containing a rapidly rising population rate is the one that hunters sometimes adopt, the culling of herds, preferentially sacrificing aged or sick animals in the process. Applied not so long ago in the Nazi camps, this horrible means is obviously proscribed for humans in all civilized countries. But it is replaced to some extent by the wars and genocides that continue raging in various parts of the planet. With the manufacturing of increasingly powerful weapons of mass destruction, the situation grows steadily worse. There were tens of millions of victims in the last two world wars. One shudders at the idea of what the future has in store for us. But such conflicts are hardly a reasonable solution to our population problem. They are, rather, with starvation and epidemics, part of the nightmare natural selection has in store for us if we do not act against it.
One means of reducing the global birthrate is by imposing sterilization. Certain eugenists in the not-too-distant past have advocated this strategy, not so much for birth control purposes, but to “purify the race” by rendering the “unfit” unable to procreate. This policy is necessarily totally unacceptable. But such a ban does not extend to voluntary sterilization, which is feasible today by simple surgical procedures, such as Fallopian tube ligation for women and vasectomy for men. I lack statistics on the subject, but it is my impression that few young people choose to undergo these procedures. Societies may, however, be driven to encourage this choice. Widespread voluntary sterilization could become a particularly simple and effective way to control population growth. This is all the more true because such operations have few, if any, harmful effects on hormonal balance and the procedures are often reversible, so that the ability to procreate can be restored in the case of a couple desiring a child, after the loss of one, for example.
Abstaining from sexual intercourse is obviously a way to avoid procreating. It is the solution of choice for all those who make celibacy a condition of priesthood or monastic life. It is, however, known, through all the recent pedophilia scandals, that the choice of celibacy is not always free of destructive complications and may lead to perverse and seriously damaging behaviors.
Homosexual behavior is another form of sexual activity that generates no offspring, but it is, for the most part, likely to be an inborn, possibly environmentally favored proclivity, rather than a deliberately chosen way of life. A society more tolerant toward this sexual orientation, as obtains today in many countries, could, however, produce a certain positive effect, because homosexuality is perhaps more common than we would be tempted to believe. It is up to us to provide this proclivity with the opportunity to manifest itself without prejudice to the parties involved. But this is an ethical issue, quite separate from our population problem.
The most efficient procedures for reducing the number of human beings remain contraception and, as early as possible, interruption of pregnancy, including its preventive form, the “morning-after pill.” It is through such procedures that humanity can best prevent demographic expansion. They are authorized more or less liberally in many countries. But this is not enough. The procedures should be more than just tolerated; they should be encouraged.
Given the urgency of the problem, political authorities should, with the support of as many moral authorities as possible, take active positions in favor of limiting births. An average of little more than two children per couple would ensure that a population will not increase. Condoms, diaphragms, intrauterine devices, pills, and other contraceptive means could be provided free to all citizens of procreating age, together with the necessary medical assistance for pregnancy interruption (under some conditions to be defined). Everyone’s freedom to have children should be preserved, but at a price—perhaps through taxes—that would take into account the impact on society of a population expanding beyond a level that is sustainable within reasonable economic and social conditions.
These can be seen as shocking proposals in a world that has always put children at the center of its preoccupations. The desire to have children is one of the strongest urges written in our genes by natural selection and legitimized by custom. Opposing it goes against our innermost nature. But we must recognize the reality of figures and facts. To do nothing is to yield to natural selection, with the destructive consequences it entails.
The measures I recommend risk being considered simplistic; certainly, they involve all kinds of political, social, legal, economic, and other difficulties. My motivation—what I consider my responsibility as a scientist—is to expose the facts, as I see them, and to try to draw logical conclusions as best I can.
“Anti-alarmists” often point out that the problem is mainly economic, and many observations show that there exists an inverse relation between economic development and demographic expansion. Let the former rise, and the latter will fall. This may be true, but only to the extent that economic improvement goes together with the increased practice of birth control. Without this control, the rising economic level cannot cause birthrates to fall. One would rather expect the opposite because of concomitant improvements in health care.
Recommended policies may sometimes have unforeseen consequences. China is an example. The “one child per couple” policy imposed by the Chinese government has resulted in a worrisome decrease in the number of girls relative to the number of boys, a result of prenatal sex determination, allowing the preferential abortion of girls. This outcome has less to do with the policy itself and more with a widespread social prejudice in China, one that encourages families to produce a male heir. This problem is for Chinese society to address and should in no way serve as a pretext to oppose birth control. Note that cynics could point out that a decrease in the number of girls, but not of boys, is likely to favor a reduction of the birthrate.
China’s example shows how local customs may affect policies. It will be up to each culture to decide what means should be allowed, encouraged, or, sometimes, even, enforced to attain the desired goal. Unless measures are taken to curb the human birthrate on a worldwide scale, the “population bomb” is bound to explode, with predictably disastrous consequences. The message from Malthus matters more now than ever.