I’ve met Paul Ehrlich. His basic approach for promoting conservation hasn’t changed since 1970. He likes to scare the shit out of people in the U.S. He has moved on from the overpopulation argument, but his style is basically the same. He has what I call the schadenfreude weltenschaung — a worldview that takes deep joy out of other’s pain and suffering. Sadly, his view of things is neither productive nor correct. And scared people get tired of being scared and stop listening to you. Even if they stay terrified, they make bad decisions.

For those besides Ehrlich that have not moved past 1970, I will discuss the population argument. Classically, the overpopulation accusers point to Asia: 1.4 billion people in China, and 1.0 billion in India. But remember that overpopulation is just a proxy for the real argument: resource depletion. So let’s look at this from a resource perspective. From oil use alone, one Indian is worth roughly 10 to 20 U.S. citizens, and China is closer to 1:8. On the other hand, our relative populations are not that far off (India is about 2.8 times the size of the U.S., versus about 4.5 for the U.S. and China). Moreover, our population is growing pretty rapidly, while China’s is not. Thanks to that clever one-child policy they instituted about 30 years ago. India does have a relatively high growth rate and that is of some concern, but most Indians are terribly poor, and the so-called economic miracle of India is very limited to its tiny middle class. The country has undertaken a commitment to reduce population growth. They’re worried about raising the standard of living, so that people can live better, longer, and healthier lives with smaller families. Is that unreasonable? I have faith their population will follow that of Europe and China and decline.

On my last trip to China, I was particularly struck by how openly people talked about how to try to find a new, more sustainable development track that is different from ours. In fact, I was there during the coldest winter in 50 years and saw that the society is very parsimonious with its resources. The building in Wuhan where I spent most of my time was a very large office, for instance. I had to wear my heavy winter coat almost all of the time I was indoors. I even gave a talk in that building with my coat on, shivering slightly. I knit some fingerless gloves to the great amusement of my handlers. Their resource usage generally is remarkably efficient and careful.

South America only has about as many people as the whole of the U.S. So is Africa the problem? This perennial bad-boy is more in the kick-’em when they’re down category. And it’s a bad argument too. Sub-saharan Africa has roughly the population of Europe spread over an area several times its size. Many of the countries there show HIV infection rates well over 15 percent of adults. Malawi is close to 40 percent. South Africa is definitely over 10 percent. For the most part, sub-saharan Africa exports very little and can’t afford to import much either. Again, I don’t see how you can have anything but sympathy for these folks. Their populations are stable or declining. They live very lightly on the land.

But we don’t. We tread heavily. We use up way too much (see this campaign).

Using the logic I had inserted after an alien abduction, I can only conclude that the current crop of population bombers wish to detonate an explosion under two groups:

• People in the U.S., Canada, and Europe today, because we have very high consumption to population ratios
• People in the U.S., Canada, and Europe in the 19th century, when we set economic relationships that essentially took resources from the developing world and empoverished people there for at least another century or so.

But their ire is usually pointed outwards, not at the U.S. today or our ancestors who set this path. After all, it’s very hard to tell people they can’t follow a path for development that we’ve been following for more than a century. This is not the first time I’ve run across this selfish and limited attitude. For instance, Ehrlich is a biologist, and I think a lot of biologists share his point of view. A prominent ecologist I know got into big trouble for speaking his mind about this a few years ago. He wished a plague on humans to reduce our numbers. He explicitly wanted a big population bomb.

So what’s behind this view?

From talking with so many biologists holding such jaded perspectives, I have a strong suspicion that the schadenfreude weltenschaung comes from (a) sheer frustration with the idiocy of most people about conservation issues, and (b) a deeper understanding about how people impact species and ecosystems. I understand the frustration. I share it. Given that most biologists see humans as meddling, destructive bumpkins who don’t care about snail darters, I think this plague-wish (which I’ve heard at least a dozen times from mostly drunken ecologists) is simply a desperate desire for a quick solution to a difficult problem. It’s the wrong path. We need to work with people, not against them.

What’s the alternative?

I think a pragmatic approach is vital: we need to connect the importance of healthy ecosystems and non-human species populations with sustainable development. Simply telling the rest of the world, You can’t follow us, or We wish you were dead, is not productive. It’s not fair. And it won’t work. More on that on other entries....

Tags: conservation, policy, philosophy