“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.
Thanks for writing much of what I intended to write, Charles. That graphic and information about shrinking your footprint by (freely) choosing to have a smaller family is nothing to fear. Definitely not terrifying. the good news is that we don't need "control." For sixty years the trend has been toward smaller families, powered by women gaining more autonomy, getting better education, and having access to a wider array of ways to have a meaningful life, beyond being the baby-making machine some economists and policymakers want them to be.
And kudos, Matt, for your writing about degrowth. Good stuff. I'm running for U.S. President (DaveThePlanet2024) and hosting a podcast, Dave the Planet, about my campaign and the issues involved. I'd love to have you as a guest.
My comment was a brief synopsis of an article/post I have been intending to write for about a year, but have not found the time to focus on it. I got onto this subject after reading an op-ed in the New York Times written by a Feminist-identifying journalist about the looming “population crisis” in South Korea. She completely accepts the “crisis” designation and offers a variety of progressive social program as ways to encourage women to have more babies.
The crisis notion is clearly that of capitalist economic nationalists. She does not criticize that, nor does she mention the global climate crisis driven largely by the consumption patterns of people (populations) living in the richer countries.
It immediately became clear to me that the “de growth” of populations in “advanced” capitalist countries will soon result in anti-feminist politics led by those most identified with and dependent on continued growth of national GDP.
In any case, I think it important that a number of us write about this subject, and we might consider collaborating at some point.
Just today, I got an email from E. Tammy Kim, an excellent Korean-American journalist who is moving her newsletter to Substack. I think I will write her this weekend to see if she is interested in this matter. She knows the feminist circles in the ROK.
“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.
Thanks for your comment Charles. Well said.
Thanks for writing much of what I intended to write, Charles. That graphic and information about shrinking your footprint by (freely) choosing to have a smaller family is nothing to fear. Definitely not terrifying. the good news is that we don't need "control." For sixty years the trend has been toward smaller families, powered by women gaining more autonomy, getting better education, and having access to a wider array of ways to have a meaningful life, beyond being the baby-making machine some economists and policymakers want them to be.
And kudos, Matt, for your writing about degrowth. Good stuff. I'm running for U.S. President (DaveThePlanet2024) and hosting a podcast, Dave the Planet, about my campaign and the issues involved. I'd love to have you as a guest.
Dave:
My comment was a brief synopsis of an article/post I have been intending to write for about a year, but have not found the time to focus on it. I got onto this subject after reading an op-ed in the New York Times written by a Feminist-identifying journalist about the looming “population crisis” in South Korea. She completely accepts the “crisis” designation and offers a variety of progressive social program as ways to encourage women to have more babies.
The crisis notion is clearly that of capitalist economic nationalists. She does not criticize that, nor does she mention the global climate crisis driven largely by the consumption patterns of people (populations) living in the richer countries.
It immediately became clear to me that the “de growth” of populations in “advanced” capitalist countries will soon result in anti-feminist politics led by those most identified with and dependent on continued growth of national GDP.
In any case, I think it important that a number of us write about this subject, and we might consider collaborating at some point.
Just today, I got an email from E. Tammy Kim, an excellent Korean-American journalist who is moving her newsletter to Substack. I think I will write her this weekend to see if she is interested in this matter. She knows the feminist circles in the ROK.
Charles
Dave, thanks for your comments. I'd be happy to talk on your podcast. You can find me on linkedin to set up a call.