ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES: ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVING OVERPOPULATION

1
ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES ETHICAL ISSUES INVOLVING
OVERPOPULATION

• John Cairns, Jr.
• University Distinguished Professor of
  Environmental Biology Emeritus
• Department of Biological Sciences
• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
  University
• Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, U.S.A.
• February 2010

2
ENVIRONMENTAL REFUGEES ARE PRODUCED WHEN THE
HUMAN POPULATION EXCEEDS THE CARRYING CAPACITY
OF A PARTICULAR REGION AND INDIVIDUALS SEARCH
FOR A MORE HOSPITABLE AREA.

• Environmental refugees are already a serious
  problem in many parts of the world because
  Earths carrying capacity for humans is limited
  (i.e., overpopulation).
• Massive migration from affected areas is toward
  areas perceived to have more resources than the
  damaged area.
• The problem of human environmental refugees will
  continue to worsen due to both the effects of
  climate change (such as loss of agricultural
  productivity) and human damage to natural systems
  (such as massive deforestation).
• Continued exponential growth of the human
  population, together with a marked increase in
  resource consumption caused by regional economic
  growth, exacerbates the problem of environmental
  refugees.
• Irreversible change in carrying capacity means
  that a return to their homeland will be
  impossible for many environmental refugees.
• Since ecological overshoot (i.e., using more
  resources than Earth can regenerate) is global,
  most nations, possibly all nations, have already
  exceeded their long-term carrying capacity for
  humans.

3
HARDIN1 REMARKS ONCE IT IS RECOGNIZED
THAT THE CARRYING CAPACITY HAS BEEN TRANSGRESSED
THE BATTLE CONTINUES ALONG OTHER LINES. HE
QUOTES ALDO LEOPOLD HERD REDUCTION IS LIKE
PAYING THE NATIONAL DEBT NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT
NOW.

• Since significantly reducing greenhouse gas
  emissions seems to have little political urgency
  and since ecological lag times can be lengthy,
  the environmental refugee problem could continue
  for decades or more.
• Limits to growth has many prominent deniers,
  such as the US Presidents Council of Economic
  Advisors The existing propensities of the
  population and policies of the government
  constitute claims upon the GNP Gross National
  Product itself that can only be satisfied by
  rapid economic growth.2
• Finite resources and finite space per capita on a
  finite planet decrease as the population
  increases, which is currently over 70 million
  individuals each year.
• For most of the 160,000 years that Homo sapiens
  has been on Earth, the dominant view has been
  that resources are limited the present dominant
  view is that humankind will be ever more affluent
  in the future. The global financial meltdown in
  the first decade of the 21st century has
  weakened, but not destroyed, this current
  viewpoint.

4
SINCE THOMAS MALTHUS EXPLAINED THE
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH POPULATION INCREASE,
DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE HAS BEEN
VIRTUALLY TABOO.

• The ethical justification for population control
  is to avoid human misery.
• In a global population of nearly 7 billion
  humans, more than 1 billion were starving in 2009
  (www.globalresearch.ca). In addition, the number
  of malnourished people in 2009 was over 1
  billion.
• At least 2 billion people who are starving and
  malnourished, out of nearly 7 billion, is surely
  a matter of concern.
• In the absence of reproductive prudence in
  humankind, Mother Nature (i.e., laws of nature)
  will eliminate the part of the population in
  excess of carrying capacity with starvation and
  disease.

5
DOES HUMANKIND WISH TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE
CAN EXIST ON EARTH AT A SUBSISTENCE LEVEL OR
DETERMINE HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN LIVE A QUALITY
LIFE?

• Surely, few people would admit to preferring the
  present situation with over 2 billion people
  starving or malnourished.
• In the present economic circumstances, the ranks
  of the starving will increase substantially.
• Are very affluent people aware of the
  circumstances or just indifferent to them?
• Does Homo sapiens really believe it is exempt
  from the laws of nature or has it enough
  documented examples to foresee its future if
  business as usual regarding exponential
  population growth continues? Is human
  intelligence used for delusions and denial rather
  than accepting reality and initiating action?

6
REDUCING HUMAN POPULATION SIZE WILL
NOT ELIMINATE MISERY UNLESS THE VAST
GAP BETWEEN THE EXTREMELY POOR AND EXTREMELY
WEALTHY IS REDUCED.

• On a finite planet, supply cannot increase beyond
  fairly predictable limits. However, demand can
  continue increasing indefinitely.
• Satisfying demand at the expense of biospheric
  health and integrity is an unsustainable,
  short-term solution.
• At a 1 growth rate for the human population, the
  doubling time is about 70 years, which is equal
  to the lifespan of some individuals in developed
  countries. At the same time, per capita
  consumption is increasing, especially in
  third-world countries.
• The damage to the biosphere for most of the last
  1 million years would be difficult to document.
• At present, damage to the biosphere (e.g.,
  melting glaciers) is evident to an observant
  layperson almost anywhere in the world.

7
NO MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL IS
SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE IN GROWTH ORIENTED CULTURES,
BUT SHOULD BE MORE ACCEPTABLE THAN
NATURES CONTROLS OF STARVATION AND DISEASE,
ESPECIALLY PANDEMIC DISEASES.

• Hardin3 remarks The community, which
  guarantees the survival of children, must have
  the power to decide how many children shall be
  born.
• When individual actions collectively threaten the
  biospheric life support system, which is the key
  to the survival of Homo sapiens, individual
  rights must be rationed.
• Mother Nature does not recognize individual
  rights, only natural laws of biology, physics,
  and chemistry, which do not permit exceeding
  carrying capacity.
• Homo sapiens is not exempt from natural law and
  should have the intelligence to recognize this
  situation.

8
EXPONENTIAL POPULATION GROWTH CANNOT LONG
CONTINUE ON A FINITE EARTH. ACTIONS INDICATE
THAT HUMANITY PREFERS A MAXIMUM POPULATION SIZE
WITH A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS LIVING
IN MISERY. INTELLECTUALLY, HUMANKIND PROFESSES
TO DESIRE AN OPTIMAL POPULATION WITH A
SIGNIFICANT RESERVE OF RESOURCES FOR EMERGENCIES.

• Human population must match resources available,
  which should dictate population size.
• Carrying capacity is not static, so continued up
  or down adjustments will be mandatory.
• Agricultural productivity is declining due to
  climate change, but, if all humankind became
  vegetarians, food might be adequate if it were
  equitably distributed.
• If cat and dog food were no longer distributed,
  then more food of lower quality would be
  available for humans.
• Tropical climate pests are moving into temperate
  agricultural zones, which will reorder
  calculations of food availability.

9
PRIMITIVE HUNTER/GATHERER TRIBES STAYED
WITHIN CARRYING CAPACITY AS COMPARED WITH
MORE ADVANCED CULTURES PARTICULARLY OUR OWN
MODERN HUNTER/GATHERERS HAVE HAD EXCELLENT
CONTROL OF THE SIZE OF THEIR POPULATIONS,
SHOWING NO TREND TOWARDS AN INCREASE IN NUMBERS
UNTIL RECENTLY.4

• . . . population checks for hunter-gathers
  were so widespread as to have been practically
  universal.4
• These checks were variable and took the form of
  abortion, infanticide, prolonged abstention from
  intercourse, and the postponement of marriage,
  the result being an approach to the optimum
  number in each society. 4
• It is better for the community to destroy an
  infant or young child whose chances of survival
  are small anyway than to hinder the mother
  unnecessarily in her task of food gathering.
  Cooperation and reciprocity are a matter of life
  and death for Aboriginal societies. 4
• Present societies have superior means of birth
  control but do not control population size to
  keep it within carrying capacity.

10
TWO MAJOR OBSTACLES COULD HINDER ANY ATTEMPT
TO STOP EXPONENTIAL POPULATION GROWTH (1)
THE ABSOLUTE REFUSAL TO MAKE PLANNED SOCIAL
CHANGES SUCH AS POPULATION CONTROL, (2) AN
ALMOST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OF TECHNOLOGICAL
SOLUTIONS (E.G., GENETICALLY ENGINEERED
ORGANISMS).

• The present resistance to changing from fossil
  fuels to non-carbon alternatives is an indication
  and example of how fierce resistance to
  population control will be.
• Ironically, anthropogenic greenhouse gas
  emissions may worsen if humankind actually
  reaches 2 billion automobiles and other vehicles
• (1 billion exist now) as predicted.5 Such an
  occurrence is not sustainable.
• When resources are scarce, resource wars are
  increasingly probable.6 Wars also consume
  resources (e.g., petroleum), rapidly worsening
  depletion rates. Wars also diminish the
  probability of equitable sharing.
• No urgency exists in the general public and
  governing units in addressing the problems of
  climate change, overconsumption, and
  overpopulation all of which produce
  environmental refugees.

11
Acknowledgments. I am indebted to Darla Donald
for transcribing the handwritten draft and for
editorial assistance in preparation for
publication, and to Valerie Sutherland for
converting it to Power Point.
References 1Hardin, G. 1993. Living Within
Limits. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
UK. 2Heller, W. 1971. As quoted by G. Hardin.
1993. Living Within Limits. Oxford University
Press, Oxford, UK, p. 190. 3Hardin, G. 1972.
Exploring New Ethics for Survival. Viking Press,
Inc., New York. 4Dilworth, C. 2010. Two Smart for
Our Own Good The Ecological Predicament of
Humankind. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK. 5Sperling, D. and D. Gordon. 2009.
Two Billion Cars. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK. 6Klare, M. 2001. Resource Wars.
Metropolitan Books, New York.