This Is What So Many People Get Wrong About Overpopulation
The replacement fallacy explained
The veil of annoymity and secrecy offered by social media has led to the birth of scores of online intellectuals. A sect of people who look and sound knowledgeable but who do not have an actual deeper understanding of the subject being discussed.
Pseudointellectuals they are called. A swarm of self-proclaimed population experts abound on Facebook, all ready to give their own made up solutions to the overpopulation crisis. One very popular argument made for procreation made by these so-called experts is the replacement theory. So what exactly is this replacement theory?
Proponents of this theory claim that it’s okay for everyone to have one child instead of implementing a complete birth stop to reign in the overpopulation menace and its large scale destruction of the planet. Others take it a step further and suggest that having two kids is not only sustainable but should be the norm as everyone would just end up replacing themselves. They say that once the TFR ( Total Fertility Rate) matches the replacement rate (Replacement level fertility), we’ll be good to go as a species without being much affected by all the other pitfalls of overpopulation.
But here’s the thing right?
The world is already overpopulated. If every couple went around having two kids, essentially just replacing themselves, the world’s population would stand exactly where it is and the problem of overpopulation would still exist.
The excess population is already here! So, to say we should only strive to replace ourselves instead of advocating for a complete birth stop is a gross misunderstanding of our current predicament and the circumstances that led to it. Maybe having only one child would lead to a gradual decline in the population since only one parent in a couple would replace themselves. However, it is an extremely long drawn process and it would take decades to see any tangible benefits from it. So the only logical solution is to now put a freeze on population growth (a birth stop) temporarily so that we stabilize to manageable levels, fix at least a few broken parts of our civilization, and then thoughtfully start growing from there again.
This “replacement level fertility” proposition fails to take into account the level of havoc and destruction being caused by the current population. All it cares about is population stabilization, which is that the birth rate must equal the death rate. If that’s what they’re aiming for, then we’re in for a serious ass whopping from mother nature.
If all they’re aiming for is to keep our population stabilized at 7 or 8 billion people, then we’re going to continue to see the effects of overpopulation play out for an indefinite period of time in the future. Climate change, extreme weather, pandemics, geopolitical tension, wars, terrorism, and food shortages are all here to stay. People greatly overlook the substantial amount of havoc we’ve already wrecked on the planet in order to reach our current numbers.
We’ve ravaged vast swathes of fragile and delicate ecosystems just to stand where we are and proudly beat our chests. And our industrial way of life shows absolutely no signs of slowing down or stopping.
When the very foundation upon which our current numbers sit is wrong, is there even any point in advocating for population stabilization?
Pubmed puts my point into perspective perfectly:
“It follows that fertility level is not, in itself, a reliable guide to population growth, and it is instead better to examine actual or projected population growth directly, then subsequently relating such growth to fertility, mortality, and migration.”
Beside the narcissistic desire to have a family and lead a family life, there‘s no other sane reason to procreate in todays world rife with pandemics, inequality, homelessness, anarchy, terrorism, small scale violence, starvation, wars, climate change and extreme weather events.
People need to take their blinders off and realize that they cannot get away with the “I’m just replacing myself” argument anymore. That line of thinking is what got us into this mess in the first place, and everyone well knows you can’t solve a problem coming from the very place that caused it.
When you replace yourself, you essentially:
- Create another flawed human on this planet who will inherently have needs, wants, and desires.
- Provide capitalism with another cog in the wheel to run its engines with the blood of innocent millions as its main lubricant. (Covid inequality for example)
- Create another consumer for the system who will have to consume endlessly till death to add some meaning to their lives.
- Add another human to our pathetic infrastructure that is already crumbling under the pressure of overpopulation.
- Add another mouth to be fed, another body to be clothed and bathed, all which require processses that are extremely resource intensive, and are already running out.
- Create another citizen who’s fundamental rights will be violated by fascist and dictatorship governments worldwide.
- Increase the competition amongst the poor for survival in a world where much of the physical and repetitive work is done by machines.
- Create a potential natalist who would be willing to perpetuate this endless cycle of birth and death with needless suffering in between.
Final Thoughts
As some deniers call it a distribution problem, others call it a food wastage problem, and yet some others call overpopulation a consumption problem, will we ever finally be able to take our blinders off and see the elephant in the room for how big he really is? Or will we keep mindlessly procreating, mining and consuming the goodness out of this planet endlessly? Only time will tell.
