Wednesday, 17 February 2010

"The ever-expanding elephant in the room."

Over the past week, I discovered that it is now socially acceptable to discuss population control as a means of improving quality of life and mitigating climate change. In the same week, an article in The Guardian’s Weekend magazine and a somewhat less serious report on Charlie Brooker’s Newswipe (contains strong language) both raised the notion that overpopulation is the source of most of the world’s ills. This is a good thing: discussion is the beginning.
The current state of overpopulation is something that academics and scientists have known for some time. The act of bringing a child into the world ultimately results in a drain on the planet’s resources: billions of people having multiple children causes a massive drain. Most of the world’s ills can be traced back to overpopulation: famine, First and Third World inequality, widespread poverty, increased industrialisation leading to environmental change, rapid depletion of fossil fuels. In his excellent book, Consilience, sociobiologist E.O. Wilson uses the case of Rwanda as a microcosm of the planet – an extract of which can be read here. Philosophers such as Derek Parfit and Louis Pascal (‘Judgment Day’, 1980) have written interesting discussions of overpopulation, the ethical issues, and the solutions.
The problem is that telling people how many children they should have is seen as dictatorial. People decry any form of population control as ‘Social Darwinism; they point to China and its horrific human rights abuses; they confuse the concept of ‘population control’ with ‘eugenics’; they cite Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.” I know from personal experience that advocating a one-child policy at a dinner party or equivalent social function leads to dispute and heated emotions.
Population control is a thorny issue and it is a drastic solution to the planet’s problems. Human beings like to have children – both the physical process and the end result. They want the cosy 2.5 children typical nuclear family unit that they’ve seen on sitcoms. They don’t like to be told that they should have a maximum of one child. It infringes on long-held social freedoms and the liberal idea of complete personal autonomy.
But the logical solution is not always the one that is emotionally palpable. Our planet simply cannot support the amount of people that would result from continued exponential population growth – an estimated 9 billion by 2050. Action needs to be taken and so it’s encouraging to see that the issue is no longer as taboo as it once was.
Discussion is always the beginning.

Monday, 15 February 2010

"When worlds collide."

This is fascinating. A few days ago, ReadWriteWeb published a post that, through no fault of their own, ended up as the highest Google search result for 'facebook login'. The subsequent comments are the kind of thing that sociological research papers are made of. This proves that there is a divide in contemporary society larger than that between rich and poor, between upper and working class. Apparently the largest gap is between the technorati and the techno-ignorati.

The original post and the 32 pages of comments can be seen here. Virtually everyone on the blogosphere has discovered and analysed the phenomenon so feel free to click around and explore for yourself. If only the wandering tribe of Facebookers had done the same.