Three Reasons Population Control Doesn’t Help the Environment

My wife and I had a baby boy several weeks ago – our fifth – so I have been pondering and meaning to write this post for some time. Apparently some environmentalists favor having no children or using sterilization as a method to lower the earth’s population. Additionally, some governments have mandates in place to control the number of children each couple has. As a father of a large family I am not advocating for people to have large families. Nor am I an advocate for not having any children. I believe that the most appropriate response is what has been given by LDS Church leaders – it is up to you. “The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.” (1998 Church Handbook of Instructions) What I will address is the lack of correlation between the number of people on the planet and how eco-friendly we are. Unlike Paul Simon, I do not agree that “the planet groans every time it registers another birth.” (Born at the Right Time) So here are my reasons for believing population control doesn’t help the environment:


1) Fewer people don’t equal greater stewardship. Even if there were only one person on the earth, that doesn’t automatically make mankind environmentally conscious. As early as Cain, “all the forests of the earth rapidly disappeared, while that hero wandered through the earth with his bow for 130 years, looking for anything to kill—‘a human angel of death.’” (Nibley, Man’s Dominion, or Subduing the Earth) A single person could travel the world cutting every tree down, or killing every animal they see.

“If large parts of our country are polluted, it is not because we are too numerous, but because we pollute. The way to stop that disgrace is not to stop having children, but to start cleaning up. The growth of the GNP, sometimes now referred to as gross national pollution, gives us the resources for the job.” (Henry Wallich H. C. Wallich, Newsweek, June 29, 1970) This quote was found in an Ensign article by Philip F. Low from May 1971 titled, “Realities of the Population Explosion.”


2) It is impossible to determine how many people the Earth can sustain because social organization and technology continue to affect the number of people an area can sustain. The change from hunter/gatherer to farmer to city dweller to suburban life has changed the density of living. This will continue to change over time. Next on the horizon are potentially vertical farms in a single skyscraper that can feed an entire city. With technology and social arrangements changing every generation, how can anyone possibly say a specific maximum number that the earth can sustain?

Where people tend to get hung up is projecting our current levels of consumption, pollution, and sprawling cities into the future. What is involved is rethinking what it means to live in a city, how large our cities should be, the role of nature in our cities, how much we consume, where and how we use our energy, what types of fuel sources we have, living locally, and growing our own food, etc. It is a lack of knowledge, a lack of faith, a lack of dependence on God, and a lack of understanding why we are here. If fewer people are better for the planet, then natural disasters, disease, famine, and plagues are ultimately good things since they rid the planet of excess people.


3) Having children is the most human and natural thing we do here. “The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World) This doesn’t say anything about the number of children, but does say that it is human and natural for us to have children. “It takes faith – unseeing faith – for young people to proceed immediately with their family responsibilities in the face of financial uncertainties.” (Kimball, Faith Precedes the Miracle) Fertility rates in developed countries are already at the lowest they have ever been in the history of the world.

If the planet has too many people, then ‘replacing yourself’ doesn’t solve the problem of over population. Actor Jason Alexander (George on Seinfeld) is promoting this. He says, “This planet was never intended to support the number of human beings we currently have residing on it…So our family talks about responsibility in family planning. We talk about replacing ourselves on this globe, rather than doubling or tripling our numbers.” That is fine if he chooses this for his family. I have no problem with that. But he is advocating for far less people on the planet than we currently have, and the solution he states is for us to replace ourselves only. But this does not get us to the goal of far less people on the planet. He continues by stating, “We will never be able to really get control of the destruction of our planet's valuable resources until we realize that we have an enormous responsibility and obligation to control the size of the human population.” So even though there already exists far more people than the earth can sustain, in his opinion, all we need to do is get control of the human population, and everything will be fine. What is clear to me is that the number of people is not most critical to control, but the over-consuming, irresponsible, polluting lifestyle that is most critical to control.


People are the solution
Barring epic destruction, we cannot lower the earth’s population. Replacing ourselves or only having one child per family will not solve any problems, but create additional problems. I choose to have children, and do not feel guilt or feel that I am being irresponsible or increasing my carbon footprint in this regard. One error of the popular carbon footprint calculators is that they assume a high number for a large family. This may be true, but doesn’t have to be. In fact, in many cases larger families are more frugal and responsible out of necessity. It is as difficult for a family of six to be carbon neutral as it is for a family of one. There doesn’t need to be any extra burden on society. Education and environmental responsibility is the key. A sheer large number of people doesn’t equal irresponsible anymore than a small number equals responsible. If each individual is independently carbon neutral, then all of humanity is also – no matter what the number of that population is. Moving away from finite resources such as oil and towards infinite and renewable resources, such as solar, hydrogen, and electricity will ensure a bright future for all.

Looking at people as part of the solution gives us hope and a positive outlook on the future. “Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world…” (Ether 12:4) Good things happen when we think optimistically. Interestingly, those who choose not to have children, which tend to be the wealthy and educated, are naturally selecting themselves to extinction. As such, the poor and uneducated are increasing rapidly. As an educated and not low-income family, I feel it is my responsibility to be a part of the solution by bringing intelligent, thinking humans to the earth who will make a positive difference in the future of this planet.


How are people the solution?
The solution to all of this is for the poor to be exalted and the rich to be made low. The creation was given to us as an “earthly blessing,” a portion to provide the necessities of life. “I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine. And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low. For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare…” (see D&C 104: 11-18)

Regardless of how many people are on the earth, there will always be enough and to spare as long as the rich are made low in attempting to exalt the poor with the necessities of life. Those whose portion is in abundance, for the sake of the creation and all living on it, must give to those who do not have a portion in order to preserve the earth. If we don’t do this “in [God’s] own way,” then we will lose the blessing of an earth full of life with enough for all and to spare. God’s own way is to limit the sin of overconsumption in order to protect and preserve His creation as well as provide for all His children. Everyone will have enough if there is social equality and we all share what is here. This is what governments and religions should be promoting, rather than worrying about the number of children someone has. The warning for not sharing our abundance with the poor is clear. “If any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.” (vs. 18)


In conclusion, the number of children you have has little to do with how environmentally conscious you are. Whether you have a small or a large family is a personal decision and matters little in the grand scheme of things. Overconsumption, not overpopulation is the real problem. If you want to be more eco-friendly and lower your carbon footprint in a real and meaningful way, the best move you can make is to give to the poor. This is the Lord’s plan for reducing, reusing, and recycling.
Read more on "Three Reasons Population Control Doesn’t Help the Environment"