#139 | Too many people?
10% of us are exhausting the environment. What can we do?
Effective altruism is about asking “How can I make the biggest difference I can?” and using evidence and careful reasoning to try to find an answer. It takes a scientific approach to doing good. Just as science consists of the honest and impartial attempt to work out what’s true, and a commitment to believe the truth whatever that turns out to be. As the phrase suggests, effective altruism consists of the honest and impartial attempt to work out what’s best for the world, and a commitment to do what’s best, whatever that turns out to be.
— William McAskill, Doing Good Better
To pretend angels do not exist because they are invisible is to believe we never sleep because we don't see ourselves sleeping.
— Thomas Aquinas
I believed there were far too many of us for Mother Earth. So I was glad to discover that “peak population” would be lower and sooner than expected. However, it’s not the raw numbers of people that are the problem. Rather, it’s that the very rich are very bad for the environment.
I’m afraid this implicates almost all of us. Even those who are ostensibly green. In which case, what should we do?
Population stagnation
As countries get richer, they have fewer babies. Educational standards rise and job prospects increase, and the perceived opportunity cost of having children grows. Couples, then, choose to have fewer children. Increasingly, many couples have no children at all.
Paradoxically, one would expect better health standards to increase children’s survival and therefore the overall fertility rate to rise. However, even in the short term, parents adjust to the “new normal” and have fewer children.
In Kenya, fertility rates peaked at eight births per woman in 1960; by 2021 (the most recent data), it was 3.3. This decline corresponds with an infant mortality rate falling in the same period from 128 deaths per thousand births to 32.
In the UK, as data from 2021 shows, there is a fall in women under 24 having children, and a rise (albeit a now stagnating one) of new mothers between 30 - 39.
Taken together, developed and emerging countries face lower fertility rates that offset ever lower infant mortality rates. Population growth slows. In fact, later this century we will reach peak population. The peak was recently forecast to be below 9 billion in 2046. Global population will decline to 7.3 billion in 2100.
Even in places where there is lower GDP per capita, fertility rates are falling. In sub-Saharan Africa and Afghanistan (among other places), fertility rates continue to fall because there is increased access to family planning and education; and, infant mortality rates are also in decline. (The full Earth4All report is here.)
Environmental exhaustion
I had assumed that population numbers, in aggregate, were driving us towards environmental collapse. It is not so; instead, the “extremely high material footprint levels among the world’s richest 10% that is destabilising the planet.”
If you’re an average American, you’re responsible for emitting 18 tonnes of CO2 annually. If you’re a Swede, you emit seven. The UK is 5.6 tonnes per capita (interestingly, it’s 46% lower than in 2000, demonstrating we’re doing something right). Therefore, if you’re wealthy you have a disproportionate negative impact on the environment.
What can we do?
Even as population growth slows globally, there will be a growing number of highly consumptive rich people. As Jorgen Randers, co-author of The Limits to Growth, writes:
“Humanity’s main problem is luxury carbon and biosphere consumption, not population. The places where population is rising fastest have extremely small environmental footprints per person compared with the places that reached peak population many decades ago.”
Therefore, we should consider radically reducing the consumption of the wealthiest in society. Already I sense a trend: Kanye is making Yeezys from algae, for example. For those of us who don’t wear Yeazy, there are alternatives.
In William MacAskill’s excellent book Doing Good Better, he assesses the effectiveness and morality of offsetting our carbon footprint. He determines that it’s both highly effective, given you can offset a tonne of CO2 for around $10 (see Cool Earth), and morally sound, given that cumulatively your impact on the environment would be minimal (if you offset all of your emissions). Better still, there should be an offsetting tax across the UK that funds projects like this.
Offsetting sounds remarkably affordable, especially compared to massive life decisions — like having fewer children or hang-drying clothes...
And given that it’s doubtful I, or you, will turn down a holiday for environmental reasons, practically, this seems like an excellent way of minimising our impact.
PS. I found this article by Founders Pledge good for those who want to read more about this. They touch on the philosophy behind offsetting, which I don’t entirely agree with.
My week in books
William Pitt the Younger by William Hague. This was fantastic. I read it at first school, in history, and on re-reading found notes throughout (“your mum is fit”, for example) left by my housemates. These were not funny then, and, if you’re reading Jamie, Sam, Jack, Toby, Steve, et. al., they still aren’t. Lol. Even so, the book was terrific. Prime minister at 24, and dead two decades later, Pitt the Younger ran government successfully at peace and, for the second half of his premiership, at war against Napoleonic France. He was the greatest statesman of his century, and Hague does him justice.
Live well,
Hector
P.S. The "♡ Like" button looks insignificant, but it indicates Vertigo’s worth to visitors. Please don't hesitate to show your support. Thank you!