As tomorrow is Mother’s day, I felt it only appropriate to touch on a topic very tied up in motherhood. Tomorrow, we will pause to celebrate mothers and their astonishing contributions to society, the breadth of which I cannot express. Yet, I know many mothers who have been shamed by their peers on a regular basis for their parenthood. Parents of large families too often are looked down upon, not admired, for their actions. In the eyes of many, the only acceptable form of motherhood is to be a mother to only one or two children. Why is this?
In 1968, Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich published a book called The Population Bomb, claiming that the world was in serious danger of overpopulation. Ehrlich predicted a dire global situation, including a worldwide famine lasting through the ‘70s and ‘80s as humanity expended most of our food and other resources. The book became an instant best-seller in the field and saturated the public consciousness with a foreboding dread of the growing population. Worldwide fertility rates--defined as the average number of children born to a woman over a lifetime--dropped as large families were framed as a threat to the environment. However, it takes a lifetime for fertility rates to affect the population, so nations and individuals buckled up for the long-haul, in anxious expectation of the costly effects of overpopulation that were bound to come upon us.
Well, the ‘70s came and went, as did the ‘80s. And while we continued to suffer from issues of pollution, world hunger, and scarce natural resources, the massive death phase Ehrlich predicted never came. Life went on as usual for the most part, and as the overpopulation hype dwindled, the detonation date of the “population bomb” was pushed back time and time again, until proponents could only say it was due to take place sometime in the near future.
As popular as these ideas were, they weren’t completely founded. Yes, there is an upper limit to the number of people we can cram on the blue planet and still have resources to support them all. But we hadn’t actually approached it in 1968, nor are we close to it now. Why then is world hunger such an issue, one might ask? Why the pollution, the homelessness, and more? If only these concerns could be eliminated by simply reducing the world’s population. In truth, the primary problems on Earth don’t seem to be a result of overpopulation, but of our misuse of the world’s resources.
For instance, we already produce enough food to feed one-and-a-half times the world’s present population, but poverty and poor distribution of resources prevent this food from circulating. (Holt-Gimenez et al, “We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People”) Our eating habits also seem to contribute to this scarcity mindset. We might hear that half of the world’s habitable landmass is dedicated to food-production, but many don’t realize that most of this is used to raise cattle, which requires far more resources per calorie than vegetation does. Food production could be made far more economical if we adjusted our eating habits. The trouble with pollution is also more about human habits than our numbers; we would do more to eliminate CO2 emissions if we would cut back on the population of vehicles than of people. While there are numerous other issues that population-growth has been implicated in, most if not all of them might be better addressed by a change in our behaviors than our numbers. These problems are not likely to be solved by a drop in world population.
On the contrary, the world’s plummeting fertility is raising entirely new issues for governments and individuals. While a population’s fertility rates can decrease gradually without any adverse effects, too sudden a drop is likely to leave the world with a few youth and new workers to support our growing elderly population. Such a phenomena is already occurring, a UN statement on worldwide aging says that, “in 2018, for the first time in history, persons aged 65 or above outnumbered children under five years of age globally.” While the elderly are expected to live longer due to advances in medicine, fertility decline is ensuring that there aren't as many babies born to take their places in the workforce, and this has experts in the field worried. The documentary “The New Economic Reality: A Demographic Winter” discusses the very real concerns presented by the drop in fertility rates. It addresses how many nations currently have a sub-replacement fertility rate, (ie. not enough people being born into the country to replace the dying) and the far-reaching consequences that such rates are expected to have on these nations, as demonstrated by countries that have previously weathered sub-replacement fertility. The aftereffects of demographic decline extend beyond the economy into basic quality of life. The documentary points out that, aware of these adverse effects, governments in many countries have started offering monetary incentives for childbearing.
These have had only marginal success. Likely this is because the public psyche is still charged with the concept that population growth is bad for the environment, and our literature is saturated with these ideas. For instance, I recently stumbled upon an encyclopedia that the Library Journal lauded would "no doubt remain an essential reference source on the subject for many years to come." that contained this statement:
“Almost all environmental problems -- pollution, over-consumption of limited resources, global climate change, destruction of non-human species, habitat, and land -- are results of humans exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet. While part of the solution to these problems involves changing behaviors so that we might “walk more lightly” on the Earth, a central strategy to saving the Earth involves curbing population growth.”
This is outdated -- but very popular -- science. Population growth is expected to curb itself (Cilluffo and Ruiz). Large families, far from being unhealthy, are currently in demand to make up for the drop in fertility, so that societies can maintain our aged populations. And the world’s problems are too deeply rooted to go away by simply reducing the number of people on the planet.
So, winding this back to motherhood. I come from a large family, which may bias me a little in this regard. But I believe that the rearing of children in a manner of love and respect is among the most worthwhile tasks a person can accomplish. I am in awe of parents, and particularly of mothers, single or married, who support their children in so many ways at the expense of many of their own interests. It is a sacrifice, certainly, that I would never expect anyone to make, nor blame anyone for opting not to. Yet I find it encouraging and ever so inspiring to see so many who do choose it.
I cannot thank my dear mother enough for bringing me into this world of toil and strife, of growth and of joy. And I hope we all pause this day to consider not just the contribution of our own mothers, but of parents and parent figures throughout the world, women who not only give birth, but give their lives for their families and make the world a better place as a result. I shudder to think of where we would be without them.
Resources:
Holt-Giménez, Eric & Shattuck, Annie & Altieri, Miguel & Herren, Hans & Gliessman, Steve. (2012). We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People … and Still Can't End Hunger. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture - J SUSTAINABLE AGR. 36. 595-598. 10.1080/10440046.2012.695331
“Ageing.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/ageing/index.html.
Abortion, “Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature.” Edited by Bron Taylor, Continuum, 2010, books.google.ca/books?id=i4mvAwAAQBAJ.
Cilluffo, Anthony, and Neil G. Ruiz. “World Population Growth Is Expected to Nearly Stop by 2100.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 17 June 2019, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/worlds-population-is-projected-to-nearly-stop-growing-by-the-end-of-the-century/.
(Photo by Tyler Nix on Unsplash)
Comments
Post a Comment