Canadaian Ecosocialist Ian Angus is determined to undermine efforts to achieve sustainable population levels. He’s convinced we can only choose one remedy for our society’s unsustainable ills.

I disagree strongly with this view, and I take great exception to several of his misassumptions and generalizations about sustainable population advocacy. So it is tempting NOT to bring attention to what he writes. However, I think we can all learn something from his mistakes. I trust you to see through the fallacies in his arguments, but just in case the clueless happen across this, I’ll shine a little light here on them.

Angus’ mission in life is to rid the world of capitalism. He is certain we cannot achieve climate stability unless we replace capitalism with socialism. He may very well be right. Where he errs, however, is in his view that – regardless of which system we organize by – the sheer quantity of people on the planet has little to do with our sustainability or carbon footprint. Of this he is so certain, that he co-wrote a book, Too Many People?, to convince us. . . .

The world is overpopulated.
Overpopulation is everywhere.
It is a major cause of most of the crises we face.
We can fix it…humanely, voluntarily, and starting today.

Six things stand in our way.

This week a few human rights and too few environmental organizations will observe World Population Day. In 1989, as world population passed the 5 billion mark, the United Nations declared July 11 World Population Day. In the 23 years since, we’ve added another 2 billion.

The UN’s latest mid-range scenario has us passing through 10 billion before this century ends. We’ve been adding a billion to the planet about every 12 years, but the UN expects fertility rates to decline such that it will take nearly 80 years to add the next 3 billion. This scenario also has us hitting peak population just after 2100. Some feel this means population growth is no longer a concern. . . .

On July 11 a few people and organizations observe World Population Day. I write “few” because the subjects of population growth and overpopulation are too often ignored or even avoided. Even those organizations which do make note of the day generally tapdance around the issue. They talk about “population dynamics” rather than “population growth.” They avoid the word “overpopulation.” “Birth control” becomes “family planning.” “Making responsible decisions about family size” is not mentioned. Instead we talk about “reproductive health,” “reproductive rights,” “equality or education for women,” etc. Even the United Nations, which started World Population Day in 1989, beats around the bush in its annual World Population Day statements. . . .

Jorgen Randers is an optimist. When I met him in Washington DC in March at a Limits to Growth symposium hosted by the Smithsonian and the Club of Rome, I found him to be a delightful, cheerful man. Yet he has given up on humankind. The biggest take-away from his new book, the latest decadal Limits to Growth update, is that short-term thinking will continue to trump the long-term welfare of the planet, and of the future generations who will depend on it.

But 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years is  far from a depressing doomsday read. In fact, based on my own worldview, informed by a decade of researching and monitoring our modern culture’s obsession with growth, Randers paints a far rosier picture of our future than I’m afraid we’ll see. . . .

A few days after last November’s world premiere of GrowthBusters, the program director of Mountainfilm in Telluride asked to see the film. Mountainfilm was planning a daylong symposium on population in conjunction with its annual film festival on Memorial Day weekend, and Paul Ehrlich was urging Emily to screen GrowthBusters at the festival. It seemed like a perfect fit.

In April I was heartbroken to learn GrowthBusters was not on the agenda. Just one film expressly about population was scheduled – a brand new film called Critical Mass. While I was bummed about GrowthBusters being passed over, I was still glad to see the subject addressed at the festival. I felt it was important to support this, and of course was very interested in seeing Critical Mass and attending the Moving Mountains Symposium about population. So I swallowed my pride and made plans to attend. . . .