Population Ethics: How Many Children are Enough?

Fresno Bee, August 18, 2024

Fewer people are having children. Some are warning ominously of an impending population collapse in Europe and North America, but the U.N. projects that the global population will continue to grow through this century to about 10 billion people.

The issue is polarizing and politicized. It is connected to J.D. Vance’s “childless cat ladies” remark, as well as concerns about global warming, women’s rights and reproductive healthcare. Young people are also confronting an epidemic of loneliness and fear for the future of the planet.

If human life is good, it’s good to have lots of children. Traditional religion says, “be fruitful and multiply.” If life is a gift of God, and God wants us to be fruitful, then we ought to multiply. But modern revolutions in agriculture and medicine have caused a population boom that archaic religions could not have imagined.

The ancient idea of fruitful multiplying is less salient in a hot, crowded world.

Ethical judgment often involves questions of quantity: How long is too long to live, or to serve in political office? How much wealth or freedom is the right amount? And what is the optimal number of people?

Quantitative questions quickly lead to questions of quality. In planning for retirement or thinking about healthcare at the end of life, the number of years of life is less important than the quality of those years. Something similar holds with regard to population: More is not always better when it comes to people. The ethical question is not merely how many people, but how to optimize the quality of life for children, parents and everyone else.

The question of optimal population is a concern for those who manage crowds. We understand this when we stand in line for a bathroom or a beverage at a stadium or look for a parking place in Yosemite National Park. At some point, the quantity of people ruins the quality of the experience for everyone. This is especially true under conditions of scarcity — basic carrying capacity can be altered with innovation and technology, but there are limits.

Stadiums could be built with more amenities, but there are costs and trade-offs. When the limit is reached, the crowds become unbearable. The natural world imposes objective limits. Yosemite Valley is a narrow valley bisected by a river. On busy weekends, traffic and parking are difficult. In response, Yosemite has imposed a system of reservations during the summer. Fewer people in the park preserves the quality of the experience for everyone.

In my own field of education, the quantitative issue concerns student-faculty ratios and class sizes. This depends on the quality of instruction, as well as the abilities and interests of the students. Kindergartens ought to be small. Private coaching is necessary for elite performers. But massive online courses can work well if the teaching is good and the students are motivated. This all depends on what we expect of the overall quality of education.

So, the more general population question is not merely quantitative, it is also qualitative. The snide remark about childless cat ladies is not about population size. Rather, it is about what counts as a good life. The question here is whether having children and raising a family are an essential part of the good life. For much of human history, this was taken for granted. But these days, there are alternative paradigms of human flourishing.

Other complex and contentious ethical questions involving optimizing quality of life emerge. Will there be adequate housing for 10 billion people? Should affluent countries with declining populations bring in immigrants from the developing world? How should we structure the economy to care for our elders? Do childless people have an obligation to pay taxes to support children? And how should we manage fragile ecosystems in a hot, crowded world?

The conversation about population and reproduction is ultimately about our basic conception of the good life, and deserves careful and critical thought. People will disagree about this topic, since it touches upon our deepest beliefs and commitments. But clearly polarization is not helpful. We need philosophers, theologians and political leaders to think carefully and critically about the quality of human life and the question of optimal population.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article291087225.html#storylink=cpy

July 21, 2017November 18, 2017

Solitude and Population Pressure

In today’s crowded world, even Yosemite in summer can’t provide necessary solitude

Fresno Bee, July 21, 2017

John Muir extolled the solitude of Yosemite. In 1899 he said, “Nearly all the park is a profound solitude.” That may have been true at the close of the 19th century. But if you want solitude today, stay away from Yosemite Valley on summer weekends.

One weekend in June, we were stopped by traffic in Fish Camp, a few miles from the park’s south entrance. We turned around and retreated to Fresno Dome, where we had the place to ourselves.

But Fresno Dome does not compare to the Yosemite wonderland. So on a more recent weekend, we got an earlier start. Precious few parking spots remained in Yosemite Valley. The busses were mobbed. The trails were crowded. Teeming throngs jostled to pose for pictures. So much for solitude.

SOLITUDE IS QUICKLY BECOMING A RELIC OF AN OLDER WORLD.

In Muir’s day only 1.5 million people lived in California. Thirty years ago, our population had not yet reached 28 million. Today, there are nearly 40 millionof us. By 2035, there will be 45 millionCalifornians.

The population issue is vexing. It quickly connects to questions about birth control, sex education and reproductive rights. These are contentious issues. In April, the United States cut funding to the UN Population Fund due to concerns about abortion.

But it is still worth asking: how many people are too many? At the turn of the 20th century the global population was 1.6 billion. The current global population is 7.6 billion. By 2050, we will near the 10 billion mark.

Yosemite on the weekend is a microcosm of our crowded future. Sometimes there is literally nowhere to park and no room on the bus. New parking lots and bigger busses could help. But making the Valley more accessible will not solve the fundamental problem, which is that crowds destroy solitude.

Solitude is quickly becoming a relic of an older world. How rarely we are alone. Our electronic devices keep us occupied and connected. Our lives are crammed, cramped, and congested. Our minds are as crowded as our streets.

The world’s spiritual traditions have often advocated solitude. Jesus spent 40 days praying in the desert. The Greek word for desert—also translated as wilderness—becomes the English word “hermit.”

Thomas Merton, an American Christian monk, explained that desert hermits sought to purge away the superficial self so that “the true, secret self” could emerge. He warned that without solitude, we lose our true humanity. He wrote, “When men are violently deprived of the solitude and freedom which are their due, the society in which they live becomes putrid, it festers with servility, resentment and hate.”

Solitude is connected to the experience of wonder. It inspires humility. And it opens the door to reflection and insight.

Go to Glacier Point at the crack of dawn, when no one else is there. Sitting alone on the edge of the world provides a revelation. That insight is lost when excited tourists pile out of buses and pose for selfies.

PRESERVING SPIRITUAL HEALTH IN A CROWDED WORLD
IS AS MUCH OF A CHALLENGE AS PRESERVING WILDERNESS.

Of course, the same kind of solitary wonder can be experienced at home. Take a walk in your neighborhood at dawn. Find a library or church. Or simply close your eyes and sit in silence.

Those moments of quiet aloneness are essential for spiritual hygiene. To be alone is to be “all one”—to find a sense of self, integrity and wholeness. We need silence and solitude as much as we need friendship and dance and song.

Sometimes “the more the merrier” is the right motto. We can even experience a shared sense of solitude in the company of others, as when good friends pause together in hushed admiration of nature’s wonders.

All of this is a matter of dosage and degree. Saints may find enlightenment in 40 days of solitude. The rest of us can only handle a moderate dose. But the same is true of crowds and congestion—a little goes a long way.

The long-term challenge of managing the masses will require ingenuity and care. Preserving spiritual health in a crowded world is as much of a challenge as preserving wilderness.

In the short term, we can still find solitude. Turn off the phone. Sit in silence. Greet the dawn. And go to Yosemite—but not on the weekend.

http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article162924573.html

June 23, 2017November 18, 2017

The Dream of Leaving Earth

Humans need to care for Earth before blasting off to Mars

Fresno Bee, June 23, 2017

As this planet overheats, some people are planning to leave. Billionaire Elon Musk wants to start colonizing Mars. He imagines 1 million people migrating to the red planet within 100 years.

Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Space Exploration Technologies

Musk argues that we should become a “multiplanetary species.” He says that there are two paths that humanity can take. “One path is we stay on Earth forever, and then there will be some eventual extinction event … The alternative is to become a space-bearing civilization and a multiplanetary species.”

The most likely extinction event is global warming. An asteroid could wipe us out – or a deadly virus. But climate change is already happening, posing a threat to the human future.

Global warming gives us a reason to worry about the ethics of interplanetary colonization. Until we can prove that we are able to care for this planet, we have no right to colonize another. Until we evolve ethically, we ought not leave this planet and destroy another. The colonizing impulse is connected to the hubris that created the climate catastrophe.

We are living through the hottest years on record. Deadly heat waves have killed tens of thousands of human beings. The World Health Organization predicts that between 2030 and 2050 climate change will contribute to 250,000 excess deaths per year. In addition to the heat itself, risk factors include malaria and other diseases exacerbated by climate change.

But we mostly ignore this. Malaria and hyperthermia don’t make headlines. Perhaps we think common-sense measures provide adequate solutions: drink plenty of water and use mosquito repellent.

The problem is that the poorest people do not have access to clean water or mosquito repellent. The laboring masses live and work outside in the elements. Most of the people who will die from the changing climate are in countries we don’t care about – in Africa and Asia.

Americans will be the last ones affected. We can simply crank up the AC, sip icy beverages and avoid mosquitoes by staying inside. But many humans don’t have such luxuries.

It will be the rich few who will venture off planet, seeking a new start on Mars. Musk wants to get the price of a Mars trip down to around $200,000. At that price, affluent Americans can save or borrow to get on board.

Such a trip is beyond the wildest imagination of those living on $2 per day. But those impoverished people are the ones least able to cope with the world we’ll leave behind.

This is a question of what we call “environmental justice.” Environmental justice is concerned with the fair distribution of environmental benefits – and harms. It seems especially unfair for rich people, who already burn more than their fair share of carbon, to head off planet, leaving behind a ruined world inhabited by poor people with no hope of departure.

Planetary escape is a fun summer fantasy: a diversion to chew on while fishing in a cool mountain stream. But our extra-planetary fantasies should not distract us from the stark reality of the present. Global population is increasing. Fragile earth resources are overexploited. And the climate is heating up.

A harbinger of our hot future is seen in California’s fisheries. California trout, salmon, and steelhead are threatened by increased heat, which changes river flows, even in wet years. Combine the heat with overfishing and increased need for water for agriculture and you’ve got a recipe for fishery collapse.

An old adage about eliminating poverty says, “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The problem is that this assumes that there are fish left to catch.

This is also a problem of the Mars dream. There are no fish on Mars. And no flowing water. Musk suggests that life on Mars would be “quite fun.” But human happiness occurs within our ecological niche. We have evolved in a Goldilocks world. It is not too hot and not too cold. It contains clean waters abundant with fish.

The Goldilocks days may soon be ending. Our ethical task is to fairly distribute harms and benefits on this hot, crowded planet, while preserving an inhabitable world for our grandchildren.

http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article157750589.html

June 26, 2015July 16, 2015

Science, Religion, and Hope for Ecological Revolution

Fresno Bee, June 26, 2015

Pope Francis’s ecological manifesto provides a source of hope that is foreign to science
The question of population control will continue to divide science and religion
The ecological crisis may demand a revolution in culture and consciousness that could unite science and religion

It seems like we have always lived under the shadow of environmental crisis. Climate change, ground water depletion, pollution, and other ecological ills have plagued us for decades. Political posturing, ignorance, and denial continue to impede action.

Pope Francis’s recent ecological encyclical offers a bit of hope. Addressing the global community with the hope of stimulating a green revolution, the Pope warns that we are “reaching a breaking point, due to the rapid pace of change and degradation.”

The Pope blames this on a variety of factors: consumerism, worship of technology, and our Promethean faith in human superiority. He sees the ecological crisis as a sign of a broader “ethical, cultural, and spiritual crisis.” To respond, Francis argues, we need a “bold cultural revolution.”

Some scientists have been saying similar things for years. Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich argues, for example, that we are in the midst of a human-caused mass extinction event, which could lead to the collapse of civilization. In the 1960’s Ehrlich warned of “a population bomb.” Population growth and environmental degradation have continued unabated. Ehrlich is not convinced that we will do what is necessary to avoid ecological collapse.

I asked Ehrlich via email whether there are any reasons for hope. He responded, “I hope we will take the well-known steps that would give us a chance to avoid a collapse of civilization—like humanely stopping population growth and reducing overconsumption by the rich.”

Ehrlich is, however, not optimistic, given the cultural and political status quo. He concluded, “I see little hope that we will do the things required, like giving full rights and opportunities to women everywhere and supplying all sexually active people everywhere with access to modern contraception and safe backup abortion, and rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels.”

Scientists are not in the hope business. They deal with facts. Species go extinct. Past civilizations have collapsed. The earth has a limited carrying capacity. The concentration of climate-heating CO2 continues to rise. The most a scientist can hope for is that human beings will respond rationally to the facts.

But the Pope has a different source of hope. For the Pope, we are “not adrift in the midst of hopeless chaos.” Rather, Francis believes that God “does not abandon us.”

Here we have a fundamental disagreement. Does God promise ecological salvation? Or is civilization a fragile product of evolution, which could die of natural causes?

Ehrlich would argue that theological hope misleads, especially when religious moralism about reproduction is part of the problem. But the Pope might argue that without religious hope there is no basis for his imagined ecological revolution of the spirit.

Hopelessness is a significant ecological problem. It breeds indifference and selfishness. If civilization is doomed to collapse, then why bother to fix things? If we are destined for destruction, then why not horde, stockpile, and consume in anticipation of the collapse?

Hope is clearly needed, if we are going to make progress. But theology is not the only source of hope. The final chapter of human history is not yet written. Unprecedented change can happen. Spontaneous decency can occur. And rational behavior is not impossible. To succumb to despair is to deny that the future is ours to create.

One hopeful sign is the considerable agreement between the scientist and the Pope. They both call for a quick end to the fossil fuel economy. They believe we have an obligation to distribute resources equitably across the globe. They are each appalled by consumerism, especially overconsumption by the rich.

Some differences are substantial. Ehrlich advocates birth control—including backup abortion. Francis just as clearly does not. While the Pope rejects population control, Ehrlich views such rejection as part of the problem.

Population control will continue to divide us. It is easy to despair about such differences. But there is hope in the growing consensus about the need for an ecological revolution.

We need to cherish the delicate beauty of nature and understand our precarious place on this perishable planet. Science and religion actually agree about our fragile mortality and about the awesome wonder of nature. Religion and science can work together to foster the ecological revolution. Let’s hope it does not come too late.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/religion/article25546198.html#storylink=cpy

January 23, 2015January 26, 2015

Climate, Consumption, and Self-Control

Looking down the rabbit hole

Fresno Bee, January 23, 2015

The earth’s climate is changing. Last year was among the hottest on record. And human population continues to grow. Current projections estimate that the human population will grow to around 11 billion by the end of the 21st century, reaching 9 billion well before then. That’s an increase of between 25% and 50% from the current population of 7 billion.

Imagine 100 people crowded into a warm room. Now put 25 or 50 more people in that space. Now imagine them all wanting to live and consume resources at the level that Americans enjoy. If the scientists are right, we are heading toward a hot and crowded future.

The good news is that by now nearly everyone admits that the climate is changing. President Barack Obama mentioned climate change in his State of the Union speech. Pope Francis will address the issue in an encyclical to be released this year. And the U.S. Senate voted 98-1 this week to affirm that climate change is real.

Unfortunately, 49 senators voted against the claim that human activity causes climate change. This includes Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, chair of the Senate Environment Committee. According to Sen. Inhofe, the Bible shows that humans can’t cause climate change — only God can.

One obvious solution to both issues is birth control. Unfortunately, this solution is often taken off the table on moral grounds. The Pope, for example, opposes artificial birth control, advocating only natural methods for controlling sexual urges and channeling them properly within marriage.

Birth control is not the only solution. Another solution would be to reduce consumption. We could fit more people onto our crowded planet if each person consumed less. This is especially true if those of us in the developed world consumed a whole lot less. The earth could support a large human population if we all became vegetarians and lived much more simply.

But the difficulty of this solution is clear. The vegetarian option runs counter to our culture’s love of meat. And the idea of simplifying our needs runs counter to capitalism, which is based upon a model of continuous growth.

Carnivores, Catholics and capitalists do not appear to be inclined to change their thinking. We are creatures of habit, who remain committed to old ideas, even when they no longer make sense in present contexts.

We are also not very good at controlling our desires. Our inability to restrain ourselves helps explain a lot: from credit card debt to obesity and addiction. We readily sacrifice long-term goods for short-term pleasures. This explains why birth control — whether artificial or natural — fails. In the heat of the moment, passion undermines good judgment.

Good judgment also encounters resistance from strong cultural forces that are slow to change. When ideology is connected to self-interest, profit, and political gamesmanship, it is even more difficult to respond rationally.

The big question here is whether human beings are rational enough and virtuous enough to regulate our own behavior. Perhaps we are not much better than the rabbits of the Pope’s memorable analogy. Rabbits will continue to breed until they outstrip their food source, at which point the population declines. If human beings are like rabbits — unable to limit our reproductive or consumptive behavior — we may be doomed to a similar fate.

We often continue blithely along, ignoring reason and morality. We don’t change until we run out of money, until we are rushed to the emergency room, or until our addictions destroy our lives. We may be more like rabbits than we like to believe.

The ultimate solution is to stop hopping along the bunny trail. We should restrain our sexual activity, curtail consumption, avoid greed and profligacy, and live in balance with the world. Those are old moral ideas that make even more sense in light of the contemporary science of ecology. But these ideas will only prevail when we stop living like rabbits and start behaving like rational human beings.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/01/23/4344634_ethics-looking-down-the-rabbit.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy