There is No Population Bomb

Population Bomb Turned Bust

Following is the second installment in our “unit study” on babies. You can read (or listen to) the first installment here.

This series is not about guilting people to have children for the good of the planet, or the global economy, or any other sort of scare about perceived dire consequences.

No, this series is about removing road blocks and mindsets so that, as God leads us in His ways, we can silence the messages we have received culturally which have kept us from embracing His stirrings in our hearts. This topic is more of a way of seeking authentic relationship with our Creator than fulfilling some societal expectation.

(After all, despots often desire a population increase, including Hitler, with his campaign to encourage Aryans to procreate to take over the world–but that is entirely different from the preoccupation with depopulation we are facing today…)

A recent example of this is the Georgia Guidestones.

The Guidestones were a monument commissioned by a man under the pseudonym, R.C. Christian. He wanted a local granite company to etch a message in eight different languages on stones which would create a message of rational thinking to mankind.

Here is the etched message in English:

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
Unite humanity with a living new language.
Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Balance personal rights with social duties.
Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
Be not a cancer on the Earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.

Upon closer investigation by CNN reporter Thomas Lake in February of 2024, it is believed the man who commissioned the monument was one Herbert H. Kersten. Supposedly, he was heavily influenced by “William Shockley, the Nobel Prize-winning inventor who later became a notorious eugenicist.”

Kersten wrote numerous letters which were published in newspapers. Here are some excerpts (from the CNN article):

“Most important of all, America should now begin to direct the attention of the world to solving the fundamental problem which threatens to engulf all humanity in social and economic catastrophe,” Herbert H. Kersten, M.D. wrote in a letter published by the Des Moines Register on January 25, 1981, less than a year after the Guidestones were unveiled. “I refer to the uncontrolled reproduction of our species, which has already caused human numbers to far exceed the level which our planet can support in decency.”

“Rational planning of human reproduction is becoming increasingly essential,” Kersten wrote in a letter the Register published in 1990.

“Contrary to widespread opinion,” Kersten wrote in a 1996 letter to the editor, “our nation is now overpopulated.”

Without thinking through the implications, many people see no harm in what Kersten asserted. They would agree that there are too many people, and that we should encourage and help only the most fit to survive, while discouraging the propagation and survival of those we deem unfit.

These views have been a common thread throughout the last century or so, and they have been the causal philosophy behind numerous bloody purges and attempts at genocide.

As iterated in the message of the Guidestones, nature was to be preserved at the expense of people–as we see in the phrase:

Be not a cancer on the Earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.

What is wrong with this picture?

A number of things are troubling. Here are just a few:

People are a cancer. This throws out the entire Bible and the message of the Gospel. In this mode of thinking, people are no more than the materials they are made of. There is no transcendence, no spiritual existence, not intrinsic value to a person. Persons are made up of the same materials as the mountains and the oceans, and, as such, are just as meaningless and expendable. If their presence threatens the material order in some way, then they must go.

Scarcity is a rule. If we live on this tiny marble rolling around in a cold, barren universe, then we must do all we can to preserve it in a pristine state, otherwise we may use it up and cause its extinction. This puts planet above people and makes people a threat. It creates a new morality that opens the door for abortion, euthanasia, pandemics, forced sterilization, and any other means of population curtailment to become ethical.

But are Kersten and his ilk right? Are there too many people?

Thankfully, brighter minds have analyzed the claims of Kersten and others like him. They have taken the same raw data and looked at it through a totally different lens.

One of my favorite resources (among many) for this argument is the book, Superabundance by Marian L. Tupy and Gale L Pooley. (affiliate link)

In this book the authors help us understand where the overpopulation myth came from and what caused its prevalence in world culture. They dispel the idea that materials and nature are growing more scarce. Further, they make a great case for seeing human beings, not as pathogens, but as the world’s greatest resource.

I enjoyed the author’s explanation of how the idea we are so worried about overpopulation (and the supposed depletion of resources as well as the destruction of nature) came to prominence as a function of the human brain to prioritize thoughts.

The assertion is that we tend to put possible threats as foremost in our thinking. We do this because we are naturally equipped with the tendency to pay attention to imminent threats before we concentrate on things like creating a work of art, singing a pleasant song, or taking a nap. There is supposedly a certain pleasure associated with weeding out possible threats and addressing them.

As a result, people tend to seek bad news over good news.

“Newspapers and other media…tend to focus on the negative. As old journalistic adage goes, ‘If it bleeds, it leads.’”

In other words, we like to feel as though we were being threatened by impending doom. It feeds something inside of us and often gives meaning to otherwise meaningless existence.

The impending doom the overpopulation myth promises is just one among many, but it is the one that is blamed for most of the damaging activism of our time.

Just think of all the crises we have been fed over the past 50 years or so:

Growing poverty
Famines
Expanding deserts
Imminent plagues (bird flu, AIDS, mad cow disease, ebola, resurgence of small pox, et al)
Water wars
Oil depletion
Ozone depletion
Acid rain
Killer bees
Fire ants
Y2K
Terrorist attacks
Nuclear holocaust
GMO’s
Global cooling
Global warming

…and on and on.

According to the news, there is never a time when we should not be afraid of facing some sort of apocalyptic event. And yet, here we are, reading this blog post on a device we can comfortably hold in our hand which about 50 years ago would have been big enough to take up a thousand square feet of space (or more).

It would seem that all the reports of the demise of the earth and its inhabitants has been greatly exaggerated…

But that doesn’t deter the fearmongering.

Why? Because, as we move away from God and His intents, we are left with a void, and we fill this void by creating new moralities. The invention of these new moralities necessitates some sort of threat that must be addressed and overcome. The impending doom of some future event or trend fits nicely.

Since these moralities are, by definition, the antithesis of our Creator, their outcomes must always become de-creating, or destructive.

And the purveyors of these new moralities are not, no matter how they try and convince us, benevolent, they are evil and evildoers.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his book, The Gulag Archipelago (affiliate link), puts it this way:

To do evil a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good…Ideology…is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination…

Solzhenitsyn helps us understand that this idea of having a “moral right” is what helped the agents of the inquisitions, the citizens of the Third Reich, the Khmer Rouge, and the Soviet KGB justify their devilish treatment of human beings.

To understand how evil the overpopulation myth is, we need to look at two modern nations: China and India.

China’s population purge began in 1970, and reached its worst fervor after this country instituted its “one-child policy.”

Under its auspices, the Chinese government unleashed a monster that incentivized forced sterilization and forced late-term abortions. For non-compliance, “officials could destroy property, jail people, and even threaten to confiscate children.”

During this time the government forced 324 million women to carry within them IUD’s which had been modified to last until menopause, and 107 million underwent tubal ligation.

In India, it was Prime Minister Indira Gandhi who led the way. She declared a state of emergency in 1975. At this time her son, Sanjay Gandhi, implemented a “Family Planning” program full of Malthusian ideas. This program was mostly funded by the United States, the UN, and the World Bank to the tune of 1.5 billion annually.

Under this program 11 million men were vasectomized and 1 million women were fitted with IUD’s. Unfortunately, without appropriate health and safety standards, 2000 people died while undergoing these procedures. Salaries and hospital care were withheld from those who refused to cooperate. Involuntary sterilizations were often performed on people who entered the hospitals for other concerns.

Students in schools were told they would be failed if they did not convince their parents to become sterilized. There were even incidences where people were rounded up off the streets and forced into sterilization camps.

A Brief History of Overpopulation Mythology.

To continue with Solzhenitzyn’s idea quoted above, let’s explore just how this evil ideology came down to us.

In Superabundance we learn that throughout human history most leaders were happy with population increases, while there were only a few dissenters for various reasons.

This all changed with the entrance of Rev. Thomas Malthus. Malthus was fascinated with geometric growth rates and saw a parallel between the population behaviors of animals and humans. He believed that, like animals, when resources are abundant, population increases, and when the population increases, the resources are depleted, which leads to starvation and disease, which keeps the population in check.

Actually, if you have ever watched a rendition of Dickens’ A Christmas Carol (Scrooge), you are familiar with the basic Malthusian doctrine. Following is an excerpt from the book:

The clerk, in letting Scrooge’s nephew out, had let two other people in. They were portly gentlemen, pleasant to behold, and now stood, with their hats off, in Scrooge’s office. They had books and papers in their hands, and bowed to him.

‘Scrooge and Marley’s, I believe,’ said one of the gentlemen, referring to his list. ‘Have I the pleasure of addressing Mr Scrooge, or Mr Marley?’

‘Mr Marley has been dead these seven years,’ Scrooge replied. ‘He died seven years ago, this very night.’

‘We have no doubt his liberality is well represented by his surviving partner,’ said the gentleman,
presenting his credentials.

It certainly was, for they had been two kindred spirits. At the ominous word liberality, Scrooge frowned, and shook his head, and handed the credentials back.

‘At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge,’ said the gentleman, taking up a pen, ‘it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.’

‘Are there no prisons?’ asked Scrooge.

‘Plenty of prisons,’ said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

‘And the Union workhouses.’ demanded Scrooge. ‘Are they still in operation?’

‘They are. Still,’ returned the gentleman,’ I wish I could say they were not.’

‘The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?’ said Scrooge.
‘Both very busy, sir.’

‘Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,’ said Scrooge. ‘I’m very glad to hear it.’

‘Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,’
returned the gentleman, ‘a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?’

‘Nothing!’ Scrooge replied.

‘You wish to be anonymous?’

‘I wish to be left alone,’ said Scrooge. ‘Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.’

‘Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’

‘If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides-excuse me-I don’t know that.’

‘But you might know it,’ observed the gentleman.

‘It’s not my business,’ Scrooge returned. ‘It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!

In fact, Malthus and Scrooge had a lot in common, and it may be that Dickens had Malthus in mind when he penned his famous Christmas tale.

He published the book An Essay on the Principle of Population as It Affects the Future Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Goodwin, M. Condorcet, and Other Writers.

(As an aside Thoughtco.com has this to say:

Thomas Malthus was arguably the person who was most influential to [Charles] Darwin. Even though Malthus was not a scientist, he was an economist and understood populations and how they grow. Darwin was fascinated by the idea that the human population was growing faster than food production could sustain. This would lead to many deaths from starvation, Malthus believed, and force the population to eventually level out.

Darwin applied these ideas to populations of all species and came up with the idea of “survival of the fittest”. Malthus’s ideas seemed to support all of the studying Darwin had done on the Galapagos finches and their beak adaptations. Only individuals that had favorable adaptations would survive long enough to pass down those traits to their offspring. This is the cornerstone of natural selection.

This led to the creation of the theory of eugenics, which led to the death camps of WWII, as well as other attempts at genocide around the world in the 20th century)

Malthus suggested these measures to keep population in check:

Encourage prostitution and immorality so that venereal disease would increase and cause women to become infertile.
Encourage homosexuality, which is unfruitful.
Increase abortion.
Practice birth control

(Sounds quite familiar, doesn’t it?)

We’ve come a long way since Malthus, and mankind has not undergone the dystopian nightmare he suggested, but somehow the popularity of his ideas have only increased.

In 1968 a book was written which made overpopulation a household concern. It was written by Paul Ehrlich, a biologist well familiar with the feast-or-famine mindset of Malthus.

His book was titled The Population Bomb. This was the oft-quoted opener of the book:

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970’s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.

Ehrlich’s ideas gained popularity partly through his appearances (20 in all) on The Tonight Show, an evening talk show hosted by various personalities such as Johnny Carson and Jay Leno and which bean in 1959.

Regular folks around the world started to talk about Ehrlich’s (and Malthus’) ideas. They even made their way into movies, the most notable of the time being Soylent Green (affiliate link) with Chuck Heston as the star actor, the story of a world-wide megalopolis and its failed attempt to keep people fed. There have been many, many more.

Never mind that none of Ehrlich’s prophecies have ever come to pass. In 1970 he was quoted as saying, “if I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” And yet, 24 years later, England still stands.

In 2017 he was still harping. In an address to a Vatican workshop on biological extinction he said,”Perpetual growth is the creed of a cancer cell,” referring to the “expansion of the human enterprise.”

Since Malthus and Ehrlich, many other darkened thinkers have arisen.

But this is not the end of the story.

Thankfully, the ideas of Malthus and his ilk have always been challenged. Many, many scholars in related fields have heartily disagreed with overpopulation concerns.

One such man was Julian Simon.

Our supplies of natural resources are not finite in any economic sense. Nor does past experience give reason to expect natural resources to become more scarce. Rather, if history is any guide, natural resources will progressively become less costly, hence less scarce, and will constitute a smaller proportion of our expenses in future years.

Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2

Born the same year as Ehrlich (1932), Simon was his greatest opponent. He began working on population studies in 1969, just after Ehrlich’s book was published. “I assumed that the accepted view was sound. I aimed to help the world contain its ‘exploding’ population…But my reading and research led me into confusion…the available empirical data did not support that theory.”

He went on to write an answer to The Population Bomb entitled The Ultimate Resource in 1981 and The Ultimate Resource 2 in 1996, among others.

Simon admitted that the growth of population can bring on short-term problems, but he found that people were also the means to solve these problems. Simon observed that:

PEOPLE ARE THE ULTIMATE RESOURCE

This is because, contrary to the animal populations Malthus and Ehrlich observed, people can apply intelligence and ingenuity to problems and overcome them. Also, in times of distress, human beings can trade ideas and resources so that everyone profits in the long run. Animals do not have the ability to do these things, so observations of the rise and fall of their numbers is not applicable to human populations.

Julian Simon has said, “population growth does not hinder economic development or reduce the standard of living…population growth has positive economic effects in the long run.”

Why have you never heard of Julian Simon, while Paul Ehrlich’s ideas are everywhere? Because the idea of people as a precious resource goes against the aims of a world which does not want to be governed by God (but we will go more into that later).

While his ideas were more valid and substantiated than Ehrlich’s, Simon was shoved to the fringes and heavily criticized.

But he also had his supporters, among whom was the Nobel Prize winner Fredrich Hayek in 1981. Hayek had read Simon’s Ultimate Resource “with enthusiastic agreement.”

Unlike Ehrlich, Julian Simon’s predictions are coming to pass. Consider this “long-run forecast” he made before his death in 1998:

The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people in most countries most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today’s Western living standards. I also speculate, however, that many people will continue to think and say that the conditions of life are getting worse.

That sounds right to me.

Besides this historical narrative, the balance of the book Superabundance is filled with arguments for the continued proliferation of human beings. Numerous data is presented which refutes the idea that we are populating ourselves into extinction (what a nonsensical idea, even as a simple statement it is ludicrous).

Here are some highlights:

It took six times as much land to feed people in the beginnings of farming than it does today.
Less than two percent of the US population is involved in farming.
If the rest of the world was as productive at farming as the US, an area of arable land ten times the size of Iowa could be returned to nature.
Land dedicated to agriculture peaked at 12.15 billion acres in 2000, and has since gone down to 11.93 billion acres in 2017 (during that time the world population increased by 1 billion).
Forest coverage is increasing in rich countries.
Desalinization is causing fresh water reserves to be replenished in the Middle East.
“The share of humanity living on the edge of survival fell from 90 percent in 1820 to less than 10 percent today.”
“Global and American living standards rose 12-fold and 24-fold, respectively, over the past two centuries.”
Globally, people live more than 22 years longer than the richest people did in 1900.
In 1800 the average food supply in France (one of the richest countries in the world) was only 1846 calories per day. In 2017 the average French calorie intake per diem was 3558, and even in sub-Saharan Africa the average was 2449 daily calories. Keep in mind that the population of the world in 1800 was a fraction of the world’s population in 2017, yet with the increase in population food is more abundant (which obviously disputes the claims of Malthus and Ehrlich).

Most of the book is actually dedicated to exploring data which shows just how human beings have been able to meet increasing population with greater ability to support it.

Here’s a thought that challenges all of the presuppositions we have been living under:

More people can generate more ideas. Even if only a small fraction of humans can generate a good idea, the number of good ideas will grow in proportion to population growth.

Two of the main conclusions of this book are:

” What’s needed to address current and future problems is freedom and brainpower.”

Freedom is necessary because it allows people to adapt and change without the oppressive weight of government prejudice and oversight.

“Limiting population growth not only limits brain power; it also means social engineering and violence.”

By curtailing population, we are preventing people from being born who could grow up to solve our problems. Without freedom, we are preventing these problem-solvers from impacting humankind for good.

Since reproduction is a key part of human existence, attempts at coercive population control go against nature. It is like trying to keep the Mississippi River from emptying out into the ocean. The result would be an immense amount of energy expended with a disastrous amount of destruction as a consequence.

When we keep people from having babies, the consequences are equally destructive. Human rights are trampled, and the standard of living plummets.

Even after this lengthy post, I do not feel as though I have done this book justice. There is so much more included that could be explored, but not enough time to go over it all. The best thing would be to purchase the book in order to enjoy the statistics and comparisons in all their richness.

Having said that, I have some of my own observations to add.

Because we have been indoctrinated into materialistic thinking, our own decision making skills have been hijacked by the idea that risk is evil and scarcity is a given.

In the materialist view, resources and wealth are finite. There are only so many atoms, only so much energy in the universe, and all of this is slowly being used up and dissipated. There are also limited amounts of fossil fuel, and water, and sunshine.

If one part of the world flourishes, it must be at the expense of another part of the world. If one part of the world is experiencing a moist year, then another one is experiencing a dry year.

In this materialistic mindset, in order to be “fair,” we must force all resources and wealth to be spread out evenly. This does not mean everyone will be equally wealthy, but that everyone will be equally poor, and we must all swallow our medicine and be happy with whatever we get.

In this model having more babies is ruinous. Babies use up the precious resources and therefore must not be allowed. The fewer the babies, the more to go around to the rest of us.

We can easily point out this mind set in the world forums and summits that meet–the G ones and the ones with acronyms like WWTTWN (standing for What We Think the World Needs). This is on a global and national level.

But it is equally obvious on the personal level.

Being the mother of 15 children has given me a unique position from which to witness this phenomenon. As I have traipsed around with lots of little ducklings in a row, often while sporting a “bun in the oven,” I have received numerous reactions.

One woman saw me in a grocery store, disappeared, and came back with a friend to gawk, and then they both broke out in hilarious laughter. Finally, they disappeared again, all without saying a word to me.

But this wasn’t that hard to deal with, just odd.

I have heard much worse, greviously the worst in church and among pastor friends. While declaring we are “pro-life,” we are in practice anti-baby.

It’s the older women that surprised me most. It’s understandable that worldly women should sit around and bitterly bemoan motherhood, but when it’s a group of pastor’s wives, then it is a tragedy.

One woman, who was well-known as one of the 20% that did 80% of the work in a local church, heard this from her pastor upon announcing her pregnancy,”I don’t really like it when you get pregnant, because your work for the church suffers.”

What an ungodly thing to say! (She went on to quit the church and have 6 children, glad to report).

It’s one thing to declare God to be our Provider, our Protector, our Healer, and another to show it by how we actually live.

Here’s a scripture that should settle the question for believers from the very foundation of our faith:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

HIS creation, HIS intentions, HIS vision for humanity and the earth.

Here’s another:

The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;
Psalm 24:1

If you own something, isn’t it up to you to use it as you see fit? Why wouldn’t it be logical that God would have intentions for what He owns?

And what were His intentions?:

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 1:28

Where is there in the Bible a mention of a lack of resources, or of people being a pathogen destroying the earth?

Even Revelation talks about the multitudes of people who are going to be in heaven for eternity:

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
Revelation 7:9

Overcrowded? too many people in Heaven? Or maybe it’s better to believe “the more the merrier” for an eternity of joy in His presence!

Here is another passage, Psalm 33:

The Sovereignty of the Lord in Creation and History

1 Rejoice in the Lord, O you righteous!
For praise from the upright is beautiful.
2 Praise the Lord with the harp;
Make melody to Him with an instrument of ten strings.
3 Sing to Him a new song;
Play skillfully with a shout of joy.

4 For the word of the Lord is right,
And all His work is done in truth.
5 He loves righteousness and justice;
The earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.

6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;
He lays up the deep in storehouses.

8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.
9 For He spoke, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.

10 The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect.
11 The counsel of the Lord stands forever,
The plans of His heart to all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,
The people He has chosen as His own inheritance.

13 The Lord looks from heaven;
He sees all the sons of men.
14 From the place of His dwelling He looks
On all the inhabitants of the earth;
15 He fashions their hearts individually;
He considers all their works.

16 No king is saved by the multitude of an army;
A mighty man is not delivered by great strength.
17 A horse is a [d]vain hope for safety;
Neither shall it deliver any by its great strength.

18 Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him,
On those who hope in His mercy,
19 To deliver their soul from death,
And to keep them alive in famine.

20 Our soul waits for the Lord;
He is our help and our shield.
21 For our heart shall rejoice in Him,
Because we have trusted in His holy name.
22 Let Your mercy, O Lord, be upon us,
Just as we hope in You.

While I appreciate the perspective of the writers of Superabundance (and others like them), they only support the truth: That God knows what He’s doing, and that God loves people.

So, however I can, I am going to cooperate with Him. I’ve observed the alternative, and it’s awful.

How about you?

Here are the podcasts for this post:

Population Bomb Turned Bust