“Population control” as it developed and was practiced in the 20th Century deservedly had a bad reputation. Often it was racist and targeted “control” of poor populations in the periphery of major capitalist nations which were thought to be “surplus” in economic terms and potentially disruptive to smooth functioning of commerce.
Total we are on the brink of population declines in a number of countries by choice, largely by the individual choice of women to have children later in their lives - which necessarily results in fewer children in their life. When these individual decisions are aggregated in a nation, the nation’s population will decline over the course of a generation (about thirty years.) [Nations, such as the USA, have mitigated this effect through liberal immigration policies.]
This development which tracks to some degree with women’s cultural and economic empowerment is the most promising path for reduction of CO2 emissions - very good for the planet.
Problem is, it is not viewed as a good by economic nationalists! If the power of a capitalist state is equated with growth of gross national product (GDP) then population decline, even if good for individuals, is seen as a threat by capitalist leaders when their perspective is narrowly national. [We are witnessing this politics develop presently in South Korea.]
The economies we need for the future must function well at a wide range of national population sizes. There is no fundamental reason that we can not have good lives in nations with varying levels of GDP and varying populations. GDP growth and population growth are extremely problematic goals to obsess about at this point in the planet’s history.
“Population control” as it developed and was practiced in the 20th Century deservedly had a bad reputation. Often it was racist and targeted “control” of poor populations in the periphery of major capitalist nations which were thought to be “surplus” in economic terms and potentially disruptive to smooth functioning of commerce.
Total we are on the brink of population declines in a number of countries by choice, largely by the individual choice of women to have children later in their lives - which necessarily results in fewer children in their life. When these individual decisions are aggregated in a nation, the nation’s population will decline over the course of a generation (about thirty years.) [Nations, such as the USA, have mitigated this effect through liberal immigration policies.]
This development which tracks to some degree with women’s cultural and economic empowerment is the most promising path for reduction of CO2 emissions - very good for the planet.
Problem is, it is not viewed as a good by economic nationalists! If the power of a capitalist state is equated with growth of gross national product (GDP) then population decline, even if good for individuals, is seen as a threat by capitalist leaders when their perspective is narrowly national. [We are witnessing this politics develop presently in South Korea.]
The economies we need for the future must function well at a wide range of national population sizes. There is no fundamental reason that we can not have good lives in nations with varying levels of GDP and varying populations. GDP growth and population growth are extremely problematic goals to obsess about at this point in the planet’s history.