March 2nd 2013

  Buy Issue 2894

Articles from this issue:

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Labor govt sinking amid confusion and acrimony

EDITORIAL: After the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS: Leadership needed to overcome global slump

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Geert Wilders' agenda in Australia examined

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Coalition fails to exploit Labor's vulnerabilities

BUSHFIRES: The deadly consequences of dismantling bushfire controls

EDUCATION: Gonski report: doubts emerge over educational benefits

AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY: How the words prejudice and racism are misused

SOCIETY: Obliterating parenthood and families

LIFE ISSUES: Abortion - bringing the numbers down

POPULATION: Is world 'threatened' by religion and children?

CHINA: 'One Ring to rule them all': China's strategic aims

UNITED STATES: How the US Republicans failed in 2012

EDUCATION: We live in a culture of Peter Pans

OBITUARY: Dr Lyn Billings (1918-2013), pioneer of natural family-planning

CINEMA: Powerful tale of redemption and grace

BOOK REVIEW Gripping tale of Europe's darkest chapter

Books promotion page

Is world 'threatened' by religion and children?

by Rebecca Oas

News Weekly, March 2, 2013

On January 8, the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B published a commentary by Stanford scientists Paul and Anne Ehrlich titled, “Can a collapse of global civilisation be avoided?”

It would seem that the husband-and-wife team think that, even after the Mayan calendar apocalypse that failed to materialise and the repetitive doomsday chiming from the stopped clock that is Harold Camping, we need a little more end-times worry, this time with more scientific footnotes.

Notwithstanding its dependence on citations, this report is assuredly not a “study”, as Salon (January 16, 2013) erroneously labels it, since it adds no new data to the literature and contains no experimental results. What it does contain is a pessimistic scenario in which overpopulation leads to societal collapse, which has been a long-standing and highly debatable theme for Dr Ehrlich since the late 1960s, when his book The Population Bomb became a bestseller.

In this latest repackaging of a familiar Malthusian refrain, the Ehrlichs say: “Too many studies asking ‘how can we possibly feed 9.6 billion people by 2050?’ should also be asking ‘how can we humanely lower birth rates far enough to reduce that number to 8.6?’”

Perhaps it is unsurprising that Dr Ehrlich would want to steer away from asking questions about the mechanics of feeding specific numbers of people; reprints of The Population Bomb had to be altered to remove some of the dire predictions in earlier editions that had been proven false by the passage of time.

A Stanford news article announcing the Ehrlichs’ report draws attention to the importance of women’s equal rights as a key step for avoiding societal collapse.

They quote Dr Ehrlich as saying: “This will allow us to include more of their brainpower to help solve these problems. And studies have shown that when women are given full rights, they have fewer children, which will help slow birth rates. We also need to give every sexually-active human free access to modern contraception and emergency abortion.”

If the best way to solve a problem is more female brains working on it, it would seem self-defeating to reduce the production of children, approximately half of whom would likely be female. However, Dr Ehrlich has written positively about sex selection in favour of sons as a way to combat overpopulation, so perhaps his comments on women’s rights should be taken with a grain of salt in any case.

In the Proceedings of the Royal Society article, the Ehrlichs write: “Monumental, but not impossible if the political will could be generated globally to give full rights, education and opportunities to women, and provide all sexually-active human beings with modern contraception and backup abortion. The degree to which those steps would reduce fertility rates is controversial, but they are a likely win-win for societies.”

This claim is particularly rich when taken in the context of an earlier passage: “There are great social and psychological barriers in growthmanic cultures to even considering [taking steps to curb population growth]. This is especially true because of the ‘endarkenment’—a rapidly growing movement towards religious orthodoxies that reject enlightenment values such as freedom of thought, democracy, separation of church and state, and basing beliefs and actions on empirical evidence.

“They are manifest in dangerous trends such as climate denial, failure to act on the loss of biodiversity and opposition to condoms (for AIDS control) as well as other forms of contraception. If ever there was a time for evidence-based (as opposed to faith-based) risk-reduction strategies, it is now.”

It seems that faith-based strategies are perfectly sound when our faith is in the Ehrlichs rather than divine Providence. However, not all population researchers are true believers in the Church of the Likely Win-Win.

Jeff Wise at Slate recently reported on the growing fear of a precipitous population decline, citing falling birthrates in developing as well as developed countries. At a minimum, there is a lack of consensus regarding exactly what the future will hold, and our current quantum of brainpower has not yet agreed on what solutions are called for.

The Ehrlichs’ article is generating a certain amount of attention, including a hat tip from His Royal Highness Prince Charles himself, who comments: “I have said it before, and I will say it again — our grandchildren’s future depends entirely on whether we seize the initiative and prevaricate no further.”

As those who follow the news will no doubt be aware, the Prince of Wales is currently expecting his first grandchild.

It would seem that the entire matter was best summarised by P.J. O’Rourke: “Overpopulation: Just enough of me, way too many of you.”

Rebecca Oas, PhD, earned her doctorate from Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, in genetics and molecular biology. This article is reprinted from Turtle Bay and Beyond, a weblog sponsored by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute, US), covering international law, policy and institutions. URL:

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am