There’s been quite a bit of talk about our impact on the world, and many are concerned about what will happen as more countries dig themselves out from 3rd world status to become industrialized nations.  As it stands now, we are pumping enormous quantities of carbon into the atmosphere, and there is no sign of slowing down.  According to a UN’s State of World Population 2007 Report, the human population increases by 211,090 people every day and this number is steadily increasing by a rate of 1.7% per year.  So with so many mouths to feed, resources to move, and new drivers on the road, what’s the solution?

If the new head of the Science Museum in Britain has his way, it involves the removal of a few billion people.

This doesn’t mean that the man would suggest some horrific form of genocide, or a lottery to determine who will win the chance to breathe, but instead an investment in ways we can control the birth rate.  Chris Rapely argues that “By improving contraception, education and healthcare, we will stop the world’s population from reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and ten billion people.  That in turn will mean less carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere because there will be fewer people to drive cars and use electricity.  The crucial point is that to achieve this goal you would only have to spend a fraction of the money that will be needed to bring about technological fixes, new nuclear power plants or renewable energy plants.  However, everyone has decided, quietly, to ignore the issue.”

Of course, one would expect this to be the last area we would look when it comes to what we can do to reduce our impact on the planet.  We are born with the undeniable urge to procreate.  We can’t just shut off one of our core desires anymore than we can truly give up our current lifestyles.  Perhaps if the cause had a charismatic leader that could champion the global change, this might be an option.  But until another John F Kennedy comes along and says “We choose to control ourselves.  We choose to control ourselves in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Rapely, currently head of the British Antarctic Survey and a passionate believer in man’s influence on climate, is urging that we deal with overpopulation.  His would like to see a call of wide public interest and one that reflects the contents of the recent report by the Optimum Population Trust, which called for each couple in Britain to be limited to having two children each. “A voluntary stop-at-two guideline should be adopted for couples in the UK who want to adopt greener lifestyles,” it stated.

In order for this to be truly successful, though, it would have to be adopted on a global scale.  And there’s the problem … who would monitor and maintain this?  Could we even enforce such a harsh rule?

China has a one child policy in place and is quite strict about who can have more than one.  Alan Weisman’s book, The World Without Us, also discusses the possibilities of having a one child system.  But the problem with introducing such a strong measure is that it would likely lead to wide-scale riots, or the termination of millions of fetuses that may not be the gender of choice for parents.  The psychological aspects are another area that would need to be examined as an entire generation would grow up thinking they are the centre of the universe, as there would have been no sibling rivalry.

So in that regard, Rapely’s solution is a little better.  Allowing couples two children will help permit a gender balance while also giving people a little more flexibility regarding their offspring.  But even with such a controvertial law in place, the planet’s population would not go down very quickly if at all.  We’re living longer all the time, which would mean that three generations could be born in the time it takes one to die.  As medicine continues to make remarkable breakthroughs, this number could increase exponentially as people will do almost anything to prevent their own death.

At the end of the day, unless we as a species were to introduce some very Orwellian measures, there is likely no stopping the continued growth of our populations.

If governments made the decision to limit the number of children born, how would you react?  Would you protest?  Move to another country that doesn’t have such rules?  Or ignore the rule outright?  Would this be a death sentence for any currently elected politicians?

The mere thought of such a rule is scary.  Let’s hope it never comes to pass.