Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

The Population Explosion by Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, Simon and
Schuster/ Hutchinson, pp 320, $18.95 hbk, Pounds sterling 6.95 pbk.

DURING the past two centuries, the relationships between population,
resources and the environment have invoked more passions and polemics than
most fields of human enquiry. Opposing views have emerged largely because
of the many variables involved in describing population, the problem of
quantifying these variables (constants or trends, cycles or discontinuities)
and their interactions, and the uncertainties of the future. Usually, these
two groups are dichotomised in an oversimplified way into optimists and
pessimists. Among the latter are the Ehrlichs, well-known publicists of
‘doom and gloom’.

Twenty-two years ago Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb (Ballantine,
1968) presaged impending disaster if the population explosion was not brought
under control. Now, he and Anne Ehrlich say that the bomb has exploded,
and that ‘overpopulation’ and ‘overgrowth of the human population’ and its
impact upon ecosystems and human communities are the chief causes of our
planet’s problems.

Despite the title, this volume is not really about world population
growth. Indeed, only a small part of the text is devoted to it, and much
less to the fact that there has been a substantial slowing down of the overall
growth rate (though not the annual absolute increase), caused mainly by
the rapid demographic transition in China. Students of population will find
few facts that are not readily available in most elementary publications
about population, but they will find some individual interpretations and
conjectures that only time will prove right or wrong.

Much more of the book is about other important issues: the problems
of food production and its ecological implications; the impact of population
growth on the Earth’s ecosystems, including the greenhouse effect, climatic
changes, acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, desertification and growing
pollution; the possibilities of epidemics/pandemics; and the inadequacies
of economists and of their discipline, necessitating the evolution of ecological
economics. Obviously, population growth may be linked with all these phenomena,
sometimes closely, sometimes tenuously. As in the case of public health,
the authors may concede that the connection is weak, but more often it is
implicit in their writings that the main cause of most of our planet’s ills
derives from population growth.

A synthesis of views appears in a chapter entitled ‘The Bang, the Whimper
and the Alternative’. It begins with one of many forthright assertions,
that ‘humanity is quickly breeding itself into a corner’. The Bang scenario
states questionably that ‘the population explosion con tributes to international
tensions and therefore makes a nuclear holocaust more likely’, but this
is felt to be receding. Not so the Whimper scenario, which is that ‘civilisation
will end if current population / resource / environ ment trends continue’,
although what the Ehrlichs mean by the end of civilisation is not clear.

The Alternative scenario offers three solutions: to halt the growth
of human population as quickly and humanely as possible; to change the economic
system from growth to sustainability; and to convert to more environmentally
benign technologies. The Ehrlichs summarise all this simply in an equation,
I – PAT, that is, Impact minus Population times Affluence times Technology.
Above all, they advocate ‘pop ulation control’, which though undefined is
preferred to the more euphemistic ‘family planning’.

For the more developed countries that have already greatly reduced their
growth rates, they call for population shrinkage, and a ‘stop-at-two’ programme.
In the developing countries, on the other hand, where the average family
size is 4.8 children, the Ehrlichs call for a decline of more than three
offspring in each family. They do not analyse the ways of achieving these
goals clearly, no doubt because the aggregative global approach means little
in the face of the diversity of populations, societies, economies and states.

However, the authors are undaunted experienced campaigners, who conclude
with a chapter on ‘What you can do’. The basic message is to have fewer
children, but you can do all sorts of ‘green’ things as well: eat less beef,
wear sweaters in winter, drive a fuel-efficient car, plant a tree . . .
The message is mainly a political one addressed to an American audience,
and encourages them to be politically active and to write letters to US
congressmen and senators.

The Ehrlichs accuse their government of lack of leadership in this field
for almost a decade. They castigate Ronald Reagan for withdrawing funding
from the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in 1985 and
for ending US support for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities
(UNFPA) in 1986, because they supported the right of women to have abortions.
The Bush administration has not changed matters so it also finds no favour.
Of course, many American demographers do not follow the Ehrlich line, nor
do many of those in developing countries.

The broad argument, however, is representative of an ecological approach
to population, pointing the finger at human numbers. Among this powerful
and articulate lobby are distinguished supporters such as the Duke of Edinburgh,
according to recent comments by him in his capacity as International President
of the World Wide Fund for Nature. The Ehrlichs are very effective exponents.
They write well – pungently, plausibly and provocatively, changing rapidly
from local example to global generalisation.

Reviewing their book is more like reviewing a bandwagon, which will
undoubtedly gain converts because of its simple messages, debunking of alternative
viewpoints and the superficial impression that the argument is scientifically
supported. But it does oversimplify reality, which is that populations,
environments and their relationships are extremely diverse, and are very
difficult to control. Increasing global awareness is good, but it does not
mean that solutions must be global. Certainly slowing population growth
may improve the relationships between population and environment in some
parts of the world, but it is far from being a universal panacea. How did
it help pollution in Eastern Europe, or soil erosion in New Zealand? On
the other hand, this is a stimulating contribution to the debate about one
of the major dilemmas facing humanity, and is well worth critical reading.

John Clarke is professor of geography at the University of Durham and
Chairman of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population
(IUSSP) Working Group on Population and the Environment.