Chris Jepson: Can we talk?

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” – Edward Abbey

I’m amazed at the number of issues that we really cannot unemotionally, rationally discuss as a people, a culture, as a nation. There’s the old chestnut of avoiding politics and religion in polite company. Something I have assiduously avoided all my life. Not polite company but the prohibition against potentially “combustible” speech.

Here’s a conundrum that I think confronts us all. I describe it thusly: If we’re not handling our problems particularly well now (as a species), how does having even more of us help humanity?

The only justification for population growth (unfortunate to me) is the economic argument. If we sold two toaster ovens last quarter, we must sell two and a quarter toaster-ovens the next. Historically, a way to achieve economic growth is increased demand through an expanding population. If population growth stagnates, for example, home sales slow with fewer refrigerators and toaster-ovens sold. Layoffs ensue, social unrest festers, etc.

How then do we address the undeniable damage an increasing population (world/American) inflicts upon the environment, if the only answer for social stability is the economic justification of an expanding population?

Another argument for increased population is that we require “X” number of citizens to support and service (through taxes and labor) our growing elderly population.

Intellectually, one might argue that a growing population will produce an expanding pool of “genius” innovators, unique individuals who just might develop solutions to cold fusion reactors or cheap and environmentally neutral seawater desalinization. I fundamentally disagree with that premise.

Are hundreds of millions, nay billions of human beings necessary for genius to flower in our species? Unequivocally, the answer is a resounding “No.” When Shakespeare arrived in 16th century Elizabethan London there were maybe 200,000 souls. During the height of Athenian prominence in the 5th century B.C., the population for all of Athens and Attica was no more than 200,000 individuals. During the American Revolution, when the incredible blueprint for our democracy was crafted, there were 2.5 million citizens. During the Italian Renaissance, the entire population of all Italy is estimated at 11 million people. In Florence, Italy, the population was around 70,000.

If, during these examples of significant human progress, hundreds of millions of people were unnecessary for unparalleled human creativity (art, science, technology, etc.), any argument that billions more today will in any way further our species is, well, specious.

So what is the solution to our deteriorating environment and how should we pursue it? If you consider (as do I) increased population as the primary cause, we first have to talk in terms of decades, half a century at minimum. Think of humanity as an ocean liner and you want to correct course from an estimated population of 9 billion. You want to hypothetically arrive at a different port of, say, 5 billion by 2150. You correct course by increments. You do it by rethinking what it means to be human and what it means for humanity to sustainably flourish on Earth.

Two impediments to change are human nature and “economic interests.” To argue that humanity should curb unsustainable birthrates chaps many as totalitarian. I, on the other hand, see totalitarianism (misery) as the inevitable byproduct of unsustainable human growth.

Economic interests—particularly in America—undeniably drive the national conversation on growth and sustainability. I argue that capitalism (economics) is as much a philosophy as it is a science and, as such, it is past time for a sustained philosophical discussion.