The Problem with People

Population growth and its effects have long been central to discussions about environmental problems. As early as 1823 Malthus was arguing persuasively about the disastrous effects of millions more people, and deep greens like James Lovelock have been describing humans as environmental parasites for years.

According to Brendan O'Neil, "population-worrying" has come back into fashion. The topic is rather taboo but does it deserve mainstream consideration?

On the one hand, population-worrying is rather attractive. It is undeniable that a planet without people would be a beautiful and unpolluted one. And certainly people are the cause of pollution; the average person generates 4.4 pounds of solid trash each day and 15,000 pounds of carbon each year. Doesn't this mean that the easiest and quickest way to help the environment would be to limit population growth? Perhaps.

But, without being a Malthus expert, I can think of a few reasons why population-worrying might be misplaced. Firstly, it doesn't offer too many practical solutions. Maybe a global deal at Copenhagen would be more feasible than a population growth agreement. Secondly, and related, it's ethically dubious. Thirdly, as Brendan O'Neil argues, people are ingenious and adaptive. Maybe we should look to people for solutions rather than thinking of ways to get rid of them.

Does population-worrying deserve consideration in our debate about the environment and how to save it?