Population Growth – a Key Problem of Our Time

Population Growth – a Key Problem of Our Time

 

Introduction

We are three authors, public speakers and political activists, who have been publishing and campaigning in the fields of ecology, economy and social politics for decades (see also the brief CVs at the end of this text). One of us, Saral Sarkar, an Indian citizen, who spent the first 45 years of his life in India and has been living in Germany since 1982, knows the realities of life in both worlds – that of a developing and emerging industrial country and that of a rich industrialized country –  very well.

While the manifold symptoms of the ecological and humanitarian crises are becoming increasingly visible, it is astonishing that a very weighty and obvious contributing cause thereof is hardly being mentioned anywhere – the continuing strong growth of human population (globally, and especially in many conflict areas). As is certainly well known, the world population recently passed the 8 billion mark.

We are well aware that we must not reduce the analysis of the roots of the various crises to population growth and that this sensitive issue requires a cautious approach. Nevertheless, we regard this issue as clearly underrated and neglected. There is practically no public discourse on the subject. The issue tends to be suppressed and hushed up.

So we request you to read and consider our position on the subject, which is briefly outlined below. We are looking forward to your feedback, your support and your taking action in line with our position.

 

The problem

The world's population continues to grow rapidly – by an astounding figure of 85 to 90 million people per year. Figuratively speaking, the world is growing by one Germany or ten Austrias per year, at least in relation to the population of these countries.

In which houses will these newly added people live, where will they get their food from, how will they be mobile, what jobs will they have (if they will have any at all)? Will they ever have the chance of (and the material means for) a fulfilling and decent life?

This growth is taking place on an already "groaning planet," on which the limits to growth have already been reached, as many indicators suggest. The ecosphere, on which we as species homo sapiens and all other species depend for survival, has already been severely affected.

The growth of the world population goes hand in hand with the various pressures on our natural environment, such as growing greenhouse gas emissions, soil consumption and consumption of mineral and biogenic resources.

It would of course be wrong to blame population growth alone for these pressures. But it would be just as wrong to ignore and play down its significance. Since the beginning of industrialization, per capita consumption of these resources has grown even faster than the world population; but both driving forces working together are exerting massively increasing pressure on the ecosphere and our planetary resource base.

It is also becoming very clear, though many or most people do not want to admit it, that technological innovations alone will not be sufficient to "save" us. For example, the energy transition, which is being seen by many as a key project for sustainable development, will not be realizable in the expected way. On closer examination, one can see that this project has too many weaknesses, dilemmas and limitations.

Ultimately, long-term survival of mankind and a fairly good life for all can only be possible in a degrowth society, whatever political form it might take. A degrowth society means that, on the one hand, human population growth must come to an end and that, subsequently, population should even shrink to a significantly lower, more sustainable level. And, on the other hand, it means, that also material consumption per capita cannot remain at the current high level, and that it must therefore also shrink significantly.

Although this reduction in per capita material consumption primarily applies to rich countries (in the so-called "global North"), it also applies to more than a few people in emerging and developing countries who have already achieved a relatively high standard of living. It holds true also because in these latter countries, the aspirations of most people after achieving a high material standard of living cannot be realized – and if at all they could, then only at the high price of further damaging the local and global natural environment.

Unless we at least put a halt to population growth, and a subsequent decline in global population takes place, a sustainable, ecologically sound and just economic system cannot even be imagined. Either this shrinkage of population is brought about in a conscious and planned way, or it happens in a disorderly, chaotic manner in the form of collapsing societies.

It is no coincidence that many conflicts and wars take place in regions where population has been growing almost unchecked for a long time. The Middle East conflict, that has recently again heated up, also has a strong demographic component, even if this is not the focus of media reports and analyses.

Like so many things in the world, population dynamics too differs strongly from region to region. While there are some regions that have already undergone a demographic transition, i.e., where the population is not growing any longer or may even be declining, there are other regions where population is still growing massively and a demographic transition is not in sight.

Particularly Sub-Saharan Africa is a hotspot in this regard. UN forecasts say that the population in this region will at least triple by 2100 (unless something is done against that). Considering the instability and the multitude of problems that already exist in this large region, this prospect of a population multiplication in the coming decades can only be understood as a demographic catastrophe, a catastrophe that the international community is virtually watching helplessly.

But there are unsustainable, problematic developments in other regions of the world too. For example, the population of India, now the most populous country in the world, is growing by around 14 million per year. This means that more than 15 percent of global population growth is taking place in this country alone.

 

And the "solution"? Is there one at all?

If one accepts this outline of the problem as essentially correct – at least to a large extent or in key areas – many questions arise:

What can we do? Can we influence the demographic development at all, especially if the people in question live in distant geographical regions and in other cultures?

    Is it even legitimate for "us in the global North" (or the West) to think about what others – countries, regions, groups of people – should or may do? Is it not perhaps presumptuous and hence inappropriate in view of our colonial past characterized by exploitation?

And are not the contentions of critiques right that any population policy actually implemented has shown that it is inherently reactionary and inhumane?

We believe, despite all such concerns and objections, that it is time to overcome this defensive attitude and bring the subjects of population growth and population policy out of the taboo zone.
Stopping population growth is not only a planetary necessity. It is also in the interest of the countries that are overburdened in every respect by a rapidly growing population.

Population policy is not reactionary per se. As in other policy areas, it depends on the specific form it takes. The highest possible degree of participation, education and self-empowerment of the people concerned, which builds on their own maturity, prevent abuse. There are already encouraging examples of this here and there, such as the educational work of Hermione Quenum in Benin.

 

So what can be done?

1. Make it visible, make it a topic for discussion!

We are well aware that it is particularly difficult for politicians from rich countries and countries with a colonial past to address this issue publicly. But they get many opportunities to draw, in confidential talks, the attention of their counterparts of the global South to the urgency of the issue.

Clarity in communication is particularly important. For example, by making it clear that high numbers of children do not mean more wealth, but, on the contrary, even more poverty and underdevelopment. And that it is not only "evil forces from outside" that are responsible for underdevelopment and lack of prospects of better times in these regions. It must be made clear that there is also a substantial home-made contribution to this bad situation and that it includes, first and foremost, high population growth.

There are many other ways to make the problem of population growth visible at various levels: at the grassroots level, through local, regional and global NGOs; within the framework of UN organizations, through international conferences, at which appropriate initiatives, measures and encouraging examples are presented, etc. Above all, it must be made clear everywhere that the commitment to preserve our livelihoods and a healthy environment is closely linked to a sensible population policy.

 

2. Reorientation of development cooperation (development aid)

In our view, a very effective approach is a reorientation of development cooperation (aka development aid).

In the “South,” national population policy measures (see point 3) require foreign funding. Politicians from countries of the "North" can offer to fund programs in the problem countries that have population policy objectives. Such dedicated funds would be among the most effective types of development aid.
Allocation of funds for development aid (or development cooperation) can be made dependent on the existence of a population policy and/or on the effectiveness of existing population policies. Establishment of monitoring, support and advisory mechanisms also requires external financial support.

 

3. Population policy measures

There is a whole range of non-repressive measures that have already been tried out in various countries.
    These include:

·        Awareness and education programs, especially for young women and girls

·        "Positive campaigning", e.g., advertising for small families (for two-child families), as was done in India in the 1970s

·        Free provision of contraceptives

·        Financial incentives for voluntary sterilization (of men and women)

·        State guarantee of a pension for the poorer classes, which is linked to not having more than two children

·        Establishment of advisory and support structures as part of development cooperation (see also point 2).

 

 

Who we are

Initiative Population Policy

Dr. Bruno Kern, born 1958, author, translator, public speaker. Published, among others, "Das Märchen vom grünen Wachstum" (2019) [Tr. The Fairy Tale of Green Growth]. Lives and works in Mainz.  

Saral Sarkar, born 1936 in West Bengal (India), lived in India until 1982, then in Cologne. Author and activist. His publications include "Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? A Critical Analysis of Humanity's Fundamental Choices" (1999).

Dr. Ernst Schriefl, born 1969, works in a firm for building physics and energy efficiency. Also active as author; e.g., book "Öko-Bilanz" (2021) [Tr. Ecological Balance-Sheet]. Lives and works in Vienna.

 

 

  

 Bevölkerungswachstum – ein Schlüsselproblem unserer Zeit

 Einleitung

Wir sind drei Autoren, Vortragende und Aktivisten, die seit Jahrzehnten in vielfacher Hinsicht in den Bereichen Ökologie, Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftspolitik publizieren und aktiv sind (siehe auch die Kurz-Vitae am Ende dieses Texts). Einer von uns, Saral Sarkar, indischer Staatsangehöriger, der die ersten 45 Jahre seines Lebens in Indien verbracht hat und seit 1982 in Deutschland lebt, kennt die Lebensrealitäten und unterschiedlichen Zugänge aus beiden Welten (der eines Entwicklungs- und Schwellenlands, der eines reichen Industrielands) sehr gut.

Während die vielfältigen Symptome der ökologischen und humanitären Krisen immer deutlicher zu Tage treten, ist es doch erstaunlich, dass eine ganz wesentliche und im Grunde offensichtliche Mitursache davon kaum Erwähnung findet – eine nach wie vor sehr stark wachsende Bevölkerung (global und insbesondere in vielen Krisengebieten). Wie sicher bekannt ist, wurde vor kurzem die Marke von 8 Milliarden Menschen weltweit überschritten.

Wir sind uns dessen bewusst, dass wir bei der Analyse der Ursachen der verschiedenen Krisen sie nicht auf das Bevölkerungswachstum reduzieren dürfen, und dass diese heikle Thematik eine behutsame Herangehensweise erfordert. Dennoch halten wir sie für deutlich unterbewertet und unterbelichtet. Es gibt dazu praktisch keinen öffentlichen Diskurs. Das Thema wird tendenziell verdrängt und totgeschwiegen.

Wir bitten Sie, unsere im Folgenden kompakt dargestellte Position zu lesen und zu überdenken. Wir freuen uns auf Ihr Feedback, Ihre Unterstützung und Ihr Aktivwerden im Sinne unserer Positionen.

Das Problem

Nach wie vor wächst die Weltbevölkerung sehr stark – pro Jahr um die stattliche Zahl von etwa 85 bis 90 Millionen Menschen. Bildlich gesprochen, wachsen der Welt also pro Jahr ein Deutschland oder zehn Österreichs zu, zumindest auf die Bevölkerungsanzahl dieser Länder bezogen.

In welchen Häusern werden diese zusätzlich hinzugekommenen Menschen wohnen, wovon werden sie sich ernähren, wie werden sie mobil sein, welche Jobs werden sie einmal haben (wenn sie überhaupt einmal welche haben werden)? Werden sie überhaupt einmal die Chance auf (und die materiellen Möglichkeiten für) ein gelingendes und menschenwürdiges Leben haben?

Dieses Wachstum findet auf einem schon "ächzenden Planeten" statt, auf dem die Grenzen des Wachstums bereits erreicht sind, worauf viele Indikatoren hinweisen. Die Ökosphäre, auf die wir als Spezies Homo Sapiens und alle anderen Arten für ihr Überleben angewiesen sind, ist bereits schwer in Mitleidenschaft gezogen worden.

Das Wachstum der Weltbevölkerung geht Hand in Hand mit den verschiedenen Belastungen unserer natürlichen Umwelt, wie etwa den zunehmenden Treibhausgas-Emissionen, dem Bodenverbrauch, oder dem Verbrauch an mineralischen und biogenen Ressourcen. Es wäre natürlich falsch, für diese Belastungen alleine das Bevölkerungswachstum verantwortlich zu machen. Genauso falsch wäre es aber auch, seine Bedeutung auszublenden und herunterzuspielen. Noch stärker gewachsen als die Weltbevölkerung ist nämlich seit dem Beginn der Industrialisierung das Verbrauchsniveau pro Kopf – aber beide Triebkräfte zusammen üben einen massiv zunehmenden Druck auf die Ökosphäre und unsere planetare Ressourcenbasis aus.

Es zeichnet sich auch sehr deutlich ab, dass technologische Innovationen alleine bei weitem nicht ausreichen werden, uns „zu retten“ (auch wenn das viele bzw. die meisten immer noch nicht wahrhaben wollen). Beispielsweise wird sich die Energiewende, die von vielen als ein Schlüsselprojekt einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung angesehen wird, nicht in der erwarteten bzw. geplanten Art umsetzen lassen. Bei genauerem Hinsehen weist dieses Vorhaben zu viele Schwachstellen, Dilemmata und Begrenzungen auf.

Letztlich kann nur in einer Postwachstumsgesellschaft, wie auch immer diese konkret aussehen mag, ein längerfristiges Überleben der Menschheit und auch ein (einigermaßen) gutes Leben, möglich sein. Eine Postwachstumsgesellschaft bedeutet, dass einerseits das Wachstum der Bevölkerung zu Ende gehen muss, diese sogar auf ein deutlich niedrigeres, verträglicheres Niveau schrumpfen sollte, aber auch, dass der materielle Verbrauch pro Kopf nicht auf dem derzeitigen hohen Niveau bleiben kann, also ebenfalls deutlich schrumpfen muss.

Diese Reduktion des Pro-Kopf-Konsums gilt zwar in erster Linie für die reichen Länder (im sogenannten „globalen Norden“), aber sie gilt auch für gar nicht so wenige Menschen in den Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländern, die bereits einen relativ hohen Lebensstandard erreicht haben. Und sie gilt auch deswegen, weil sich die Hoffnungen der meisten Menschen in diesen Ländern auf einen hohen materiellen Lebensstandard nicht verwirklichen lassen – und wenn, dann nur um den hohen Preis einer weiteren Beeinträchtigung und Zerstörung der lokalen und globalen natürlichen Umwelt.

Ohne Stopp des Bevölkerungswachstums und in weiterer Folge auch Rückgang der Weltbevölkerung wird also eine nachhaltige, ökologisch einigermaßen verträgliche Ökonomie nicht möglich sein. Entweder wird diese Schrumpfung auf bewusstem, willentlichem Weg herbeigeführt, oder sie passiert ungeordnet, ja chaotisch in Form des Kollapses von Gesellschaften.

Es ist kein Zufall, dass viele Konflikte und Kriege gerade in Regionen stattfinden, in denen die Bevölkerung seit langem schier ungebremst wächst. Auch der jüngst wieder hochgekochte Nahostkonflikt hat eine starke demografische Komponente, auch wenn diese nicht im Fokus der Berichterstattung und Analysen steht.

Wie so vieles auf der Welt, ist auch die Bevölkerungsdynamik sehr ungleich ausgeprägt. Während es einige Regionen gibt, die bereits einen demografischen Übergang geschafft haben, in denen die Bevölkerung also nicht mehr wächst oder eventuell sogar zurückgeht, gibt es andere Regionen, in denen die Bevölkerung noch massiv wächst und auch ein demografischer Übergang nicht klar erkennbar ist.

Ein besonderer Hotspot ist in dieser Hinsicht Subsahara-Afrika. Prognosen der UN gehen mindestens von einer Verdreifachung der Bevölkerung in dieser Region bis 2100 aus. Angesichts der Instabilität und der Vielzahl an Problemen, die es in dieser Großregion jetzt schon gibt, ist dieser Ausblick auf eine Bevölkerungsvervielfachung in den nächsten Jahrzehnten nur als demografische Katastrophe zu begreifen. Eine Katastrophe, der die Weltgemeinschaft weitgehend rat- und tatenlos zusieht.

Aber auch in anderen Weltregionen gibt es nicht-nachhaltige, problematische Entwicklungen. So wächst im mittlerweile bevölkerungsreichsten Land der Welt, in Indien, die Bevölkerung pro Jahr um etwa 14 Millionen. Mehr als 15 Prozent des globalen Bevölkerungswachstums findet also allein in diesem Land statt.

Und die „Lösung“? Gibt es überhaupt eine?

Wenn man nun die grundsätzliche Richtigkeit dieses Problemaufrisses anerkennt – zumindest weitgehend, bzw. in entscheidenden Bereichen, stellen sich viele Fragen:

Was kann man tun? Kann man auf die Entwicklung der Bevölkerung überhaupt Einfluss nehmen, insbesondere wenn die betroffenen Menschen in weit entfernten geographischen Regionen und auch in anderen Kulturkreisen leben? Ist es überhaupt legitim, wenn „wir im globalen Norden“ (oder Westen) darüber nachdenken, was andere – Länder, Regionen, Gruppen von Menschen – tun sollen oder dürfen? Ist das nicht vielleicht anmaßend und, angesichts einer von Ausbeutung geprägten kolonialen Vergangenheit, unangebracht? Und haben nicht Beispiele von Bevölkerungspolitik aus der Vergangenheit gezeigt, dass diese inhärent reaktionär und menschenverachtend ist?

Trotz aller Bedenken und Einwände denken wir, dass es an der Zeit ist, diese defensive Haltung zu überwinden und die Tabuthemen Bevölkerung, Bevölkerungswachstum und Bevölkerungspolitik aus der Tabuzone zu holen. Eine Eindämmung des Bevölkerungswachstums ist nicht nur eine planetarische Notwendigkeit, sondern liegt ebenso im eigenen Interesse der betroffenen Länder, die mit einer stark wachsenden Bevölkerung in jeder Hinsicht überfordert sind.

Bevölkerungspolitik ist nicht von vornherein reaktionär. Wie auf anderen Politikfeldern auch kommt es auch hierbei auf die konkrete Ausgestaltung an. Ein möglichst hohes Maß an Partizipation, Aufklärung und Selbstermächtigung der Menschen, die auf deren Mündigkeit setzt, beugt einem Missbrauch vor. Dafür gibt es da und dort bereits ermutigende Beispiele, etwa die Aufklärungsarbeit von Hermione Quenum in Benin.

Was also tun? Wo könnte es konkrete Ansatzpunkte für Initiativen geben?

1. Zum Thema machen, sichtbar machen

Uns ist bewusst, dass es für Politiker aus (reichen) Ländern mit kolonialer Vergangenheit besonders schwierig ist, dieses Thema öffentlich anzusprechen. Aber sie haben die Möglichkeit, Amtskollegen in Ländern des globalen Südens in direkten Gesprächen auf die Dringlichkeit der Thematik hinzuweisen.

Wichtig ist Klarheit in der Kommunikation. Etwa indem klar gemacht wird, dass hohe Kinderzahlen nicht mehr Reichtum, sondern im Gegenteil noch mehr Armut und noch mehr Unterentwicklung bedeuten. Und dass es nicht nur „böse Mächte von außen“ sind, die für Unterentwicklung und Perspektivlosigkeit in diesen Regionen sorgen, sondern dass es auch einen substanziellen hausgemachten Anteil daran gibt, und dass dazu zuvorderst ein hohes Bevölkerungswachstum zählt.

Darüber hinaus gibt es vielfache Möglichkeiten, das Problem des Bevölkerungswachstums auf verschiedenen Ebenen sichtbar zu machen: an der Basis durch NGOs auf lokaler, regionaler und globaler Ebene; im Rahmen von UN-Organisationen durch internationale Konferenzen, auf denen entsprechende Initiativen, Maßnahmen und ermutigende Beispiele vorgestellt werden, etc. Es muss vor allem klar herausgestellt werden, dass das Engagement für den Erhalt unserer Lebensgrundlagen und eine gesunde Umwelt eng mit einer vernünftigen Bevölkerungspolitik zusammenhängt.

2. Neuorientierung der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit

Ein sehr wirksamer Ansatzpunkt stellt aus unserer Sicht eine Neuorientierung der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit dar.

Politiker aus Ländern des „Nordens“ können anbieten, Programme mit bevölkerungs- politischen Inhalten in den Problemländern finanziell zu unterstützen.

Gelder für Entwicklungshilfe bzw. Entwicklungszusammenarbeit können in Abhängigkeit von der Existenz einer Bevölkerungspolitik beziehungsweise in Abhängigkeit von der Effektivität der eventuell existierenden Bevölkerungspolitik vergeben werden. Bevölkerungspolitische Maßnahmen (siehe Punkt 3) selbst brauchen Finanzierung, die vermutlich zu einem großen Teil von außen kommen muss. Solche zweckgebundenen Mittel würden zu den effektivsten Arten der Entwicklungshilfe gehören. Auch der Aufbau von Kontroll-, Unterstützungs- und Beratungsmechanismen braucht finanzielle Unterstützung von außen.

3. Bevölkerungspolitische Maßnahmen

Es gibt eine ganze Reihe nicht-repressiver Maßnahmen, die auch in verschiedenen Ländern bereits erprobt wurden.

Dazu zählen:

• Aufklärungs- und Bildungsprogramme, insbesondere für junge Frauen und Mädchen
• „positive Campaigning“, z.B. Werbung für Kleinfamilien (für 2-Kind-Familien), wie das auch in Indien in den 1970er-Jahren gemacht wurde
• Gratis-Zur-Verfügungstellung von Verhütungsmitteln
• finanzielle Anreize bei freiwilligen Sterilisationen (von Männern und Frauen)
• staatliche Garantie einer Altersversorgung für die ärmeren Schichten, die an den Verzicht auf Kinder über zwei hinaus gekoppelt ist
• Aufbau von Beratungs- und Förderstrukturen als Teil der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (siehe auch Punkt 2).

Wer wir sind

Initiative Bevölkerungspolitik

Dr. Bruno Kern, geb. 1958. Autor, Übersetzer, Vortragender. Veröffentlichte u.a. „Das Märchen vom grünen Wachstum“ (2019). Lebt und arbeitet in Mainz.

Saral Sarkar, geb. 1936 in Westbengalen (Indien), lebte bis 1982 in Indien, danach in Köln. Autor und Aktivist. Veröffentlichte u.a. „Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism. A Critical Analysis of Humanity's Fundamental Choices“ (1999).

Dr. Ernst Schriefl, geb. 1969. Mitarbeiter eines Technischen Büros für Bauphysik und Energieeffizienz. Daneben auch publizistisch tätig (u.a. Buch „Öko-Bilanz“, 2021). Lebt und arbeitet in Wien.

 

Population Growth – a Key Problem of Our Time

 

Introduction

We are three authors, public speakers and political activists, who have been publishing and campaigning in the fields of ecology, economy and social politics for decades (see also the brief CVs at the end of this text). One of us, Saral Sarkar, an Indian citizen, who spent the first 45 years of his life in India and has been living in Germany since 1982, knows the realities of life in both worlds – that of a developing and emerging industrial country and that of a rich industrialized country –  very well.

While the manifold symptoms of the ecological and humanitarian crises are becoming increasingly visible, it is astonishing that a very weighty and obvious contributing cause thereof is hardly being mentioned anywhere – the continuing strong growth of human population (globally, and especially in many conflict areas). As is certainly well known, the world population recently passed the 8 billion mark.

We are well aware that we must not reduce the analysis of the roots of the various crises to population growth and that this sensitive issue requires a cautious approach. Nevertheless, we regard this issue as clearly underrated and neglected. There is practically no public discourse on the subject. The issue tends to be suppressed and hushed up.

So we request you to read and consider our position on the subject, which is briefly outlined below. We are looking forward to your feedback, your support and your taking action in line with our position.

 

The problem

The world's population continues to grow rapidly – by an astounding figure of 85 to 90 million people per year. Figuratively speaking, the world is growing by one Germany or ten Austrias per year, at least in relation to the population of these countries.

In which houses will these newly added people live, where will they get their food from, how will they be mobile, what jobs will they have (if they will have any at all)? Will they ever have the chance of (and the material means for) a fulfilling and decent life?

This growth is taking place on an already "groaning planet," on which the limits to growth have already been reached, as many indicators suggest. The ecosphere, on which we as species homo sapiens and all other species depend for survival, has already been severely affected.

The growth of the world population goes hand in hand with the various pressures on our natural environment, such as growing greenhouse gas emissions, soil consumption and consumption of mineral and biogenic resources.

It would of course be wrong to blame population growth alone for these pressures. But it would be just as wrong to ignore and play down its significance. Since the beginning of industrialization, per capita consumption of these resources has grown even faster than the world population; but both driving forces working together are exerting massively increasing pressure on the ecosphere and our planetary resource base.

It is also becoming very clear, though many or most people do not want to admit it, that technological innovations alone will not be sufficient to "save" us. For example, the energy transition, which is being seen by many as a key project for sustainable development, will not be realizable in the expected way. On closer examination, one can see that this project has too many weaknesses, dilemmas and limitations.

Ultimately, long-term survival of mankind and a fairly good life for all can only be possible in a degrowth society, whatever political form it might take. A degrowth society means that, on the one hand, human population growth must come to an end and that, subsequently, population should even shrink to a significantly lower, more sustainable level. And, on the other hand, it means, that also material consumption per capita cannot remain at the current high level, and that it must therefore also shrink significantly.

Although this reduction in per capita material consumption primarily applies to rich countries (in the so-called "global North"), it also applies to more than a few people in emerging and developing countries who have already achieved a relatively high standard of living. It holds true also because in these latter countries, the aspirations of most people after achieving a high material standard of living cannot be realized – and if at all they could, then only at the high price of further damaging the local and global natural environment.

Unless we at least put a halt to population growth, and a subsequent decline in global population takes place, a sustainable, ecologically sound and just economic system cannot even be imagined. Either this shrinkage of population is brought about in a conscious and planned way, or it happens in a disorderly, chaotic manner in the form of collapsing societies.

It is no coincidence that many conflicts and wars take place in regions where population has been growing almost unchecked for a long time. The Middle East conflict, that has recently again heated up, also has a strong demographic component, even if this is not the focus of media reports and analyses.

Like so many things in the world, population dynamics too differs strongly from region to region. While there are some regions that have already undergone a demographic transition, i.e., where the population is not growing any longer or may even be declining, there are other regions where population is still growing massively and a demographic transition is not in sight.

Particularly Sub-Saharan Africa is a hotspot in this regard. UN forecasts say that the population in this region will at least triple by 2100 (unless something is done against that). Considering the instability and the multitude of problems that already exist in this large region, this prospect of a population multiplication in the coming decades can only be understood as a demographic catastrophe, a catastrophe that the international community is virtually watching helplessly.

But there are unsustainable, problematic developments in other regions of the world too. For example, the population of India, now the most populous country in the world, is growing by around 14 million per year. This means that more than 15 percent of global population growth is taking place in this country alone.

 

And the "solution"? Is there one at all?

If one accepts this outline of the problem as essentially correct – at least to a large extent or in key areas – many questions arise:

What can we do? Can we influence the demographic development at all, especially if the people in question live in distant geographical regions and in other cultures?

    Is it even legitimate for "us in the global North" (or the West) to think about what others – countries, regions, groups of people – should or may do? Is it not perhaps presumptuous and hence inappropriate in view of our colonial past characterized by exploitation?

And are not the contentions of critiques right that any population policy actually implemented has shown that it is inherently reactionary and inhumane?

We believe, despite all such concerns and objections, that it is time to overcome this defensive attitude and bring the subjects of population growth and population policy out of the taboo zone.
Stopping population growth is not only a planetary necessity. It is also in the interest of the countries that are overburdened in every respect by a rapidly growing population.

Population policy is not reactionary per se. As in other policy areas, it depends on the specific form it takes. The highest possible degree of participation, education and self-empowerment of the people concerned, which builds on their own maturity, prevent abuse. There are already encouraging examples of this here and there, such as the educational work of Hermione Quenum in Benin.

 

So what can be done?

1. Make it visible, make it a topic for discussion!

We are well aware that it is particularly difficult for politicians from rich countries and countries with a colonial past to address this issue publicly. But they get many opportunities to draw, in confidential talks, the attention of their counterparts of the global South to the urgency of the issue.

Clarity in communication is particularly important. For example, by making it clear that high numbers of children do not mean more wealth, but, on the contrary, even more poverty and underdevelopment. And that it is not only "evil forces from outside" that are responsible for underdevelopment and lack of prospects of better times in these regions. It must be made clear that there is also a substantial home-made contribution to this bad situation and that it includes, first and foremost, high population growth.

There are many other ways to make the problem of population growth visible at various levels: at the grassroots level, through local, regional and global NGOs; within the framework of UN organizations, through international conferences, at which appropriate initiatives, measures and encouraging examples are presented, etc. Above all, it must be made clear everywhere that the commitment to preserve our livelihoods and a healthy environment is closely linked to a sensible population policy.

 

2. Reorientation of development cooperation (development aid)

In our view, a very effective approach is a reorientation of development cooperation (aka development aid).

In the “South,” national population policy measures (see point 3) require foreign funding. Politicians from countries of the "North" can offer to fund programs in the problem countries that have population policy objectives. Such dedicated funds would be among the most effective types of development aid.
Allocation of funds for development aid (or development cooperation) can be made dependent on the existence of a population policy and/or on the effectiveness of existing population policies. Establishment of monitoring, support and advisory mechanisms also requires external financial support.

 

3. Population policy measures

There is a whole range of non-repressive measures that have already been tried out in various countries.
    These include:

·        Awareness and education programs, especially for young women and girls

·        "Positive campaigning", e.g., advertising for small families (for two-child families), as was done in India in the 1970s

·        Free provision of contraceptives

·        Financial incentives for voluntary sterilization (of men and women)

·        State guarantee of a pension for the poorer classes, which is linked to not having more than two children

·        Establishment of advisory and support structures as part of development cooperation (see also point 2).

 

 

Who we are

Initiative Population Policy

Dr. Bruno Kern, born 1958, author, translator, public speaker. Published, among others, "Das Märchen vom grünen Wachstum" (2019) [Tr. The Fairy Tale of Green Growth]. Lives and works in Mainz.  

Saral Sarkar, born 1936 in West Bengal (India), lived in India until 1982, then in Cologne. Author and activist. His publications include "Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? A Critical Analysis of Humanity's Fundamental Choices" (1999).

Dr. Ernst Schriefl, born 1969, works in a firm for building physics and energy efficiency. Also active as author; e.g., book "Öko-Bilanz" (2021) [Tr. Ecological Balance-Sheet]. Lives and works in Vienna.

 

(1) From Marxist Socialism to Eco-Socialism -- Turning Points of a Personal Journey ----- (2) Ted Trainer's Eco-Anarchist Vision 2030--2050 -- It is Too Utopian

14.9.2018

Dear friends,

I would like to inform you about two texts of mine:

(1) 2018 is a special year for all activists, scholars and theoreticians of the Left. It is the 200th birth anniversary of Marx. The classical/old Left is celebrating it. Others are holding meetings, seminars, and discussions on his works. German TV channels have made and broadcast docudramas on his life. Trier, where Marx was born, let the Chinese install a huge statue of the famous but not much loved son of the city.
    Against this background, I was requested by the editor of an online journal to write my critical appreciation of the great master. I could not exactly comply with the request because I do not possess enough Marxological qualification for the task. But I wrote something close to it – a slightly autobiographical essay entitled

From Marxist Socialism to Eco-Socialism – Turning Points of a Personal Journey Through a Theory of Socialism.

 (2) Recently a good political friend of mine, Ted Trainer, who is a protagonist of eco-anarchism, published a futuristic imaginary interview given in 2050 on how, after a huge crisis of global capitalism in the year 2030, people in various small towns and regions of the world built up, following anarchistic principles, a self-governing and largely self-sufficient political-economic system.
    I found it too utopian, of little use for today’s necessary political actions. I criticized it frankly with a short text in the form of a letter, which is entitled
 

Ted Trainer’s Eco-Anarchist Vision 2030–2050. It is too Utopian.

Both the texts can be found in my blogsite:

www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com

If you find them useful or just interesting, I request you to distribute them among your friends, or republish them in your website or elsewhere.

With best wishes

Saral Sarkar

(1) Green Party of Germany – From Beacon of Hope to a Bog-standard Party (2) Varieties of Eco-Socialism

18.04.2018

Dear friends,

today I want to inform you about two posts on my blogsite

www.eco-socialist.blogspot.de

(1) Of late, eco-activists all over the world have been wondering whether attempts should be made in more countries, particularly in the developing world, e.g. in India, to form green parties. No serious discussion has taken place yet. However, just a few weeks ago, the editor of a web journal requested me to write a contribution to the discussion on the basis of my study of and experience in the Green Party of Germany. The text posted today is the result of my trying to fulfil that request. It is entitled

The Green Party of Germany – From Beacon of Hope to a Bog-standard Party

(2) An Australian scholar, Jonathan Rutherford, has drawn the attention of politically interested people to the fact that there are varieties of eco-socialism. I am posting the link to this essay on my blogsite because it compares my variety with that of John Bellamy Foster. The essay is entitled

Varieties of Eco-Socialism: Comparing the Thought of John Bellamy Foster with Saral Sarkar’s

I hope you would find both interesting and would be glad if you forward them to interested people.

With best wishes

Saral Sarkar

The Two Drivers of Ecological Collapse and the Two Tasks

28.01.2018
Dear friends,

After I had posted my essay

For Saving the Earth We Need to Tell the Whole Truth – an eco-socialist's response to Richard Smith

in my own blogsite
www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com

and also published it in an online journal (for link, see the previous post below), a lively and critical debate/discussion ensued in a different online discussion forum. Here is the link:

https://scncc.net/threads/climate-crisis-and-managed-deindustrialization-debating-alternatives-to-ecological-collapse.223/

    I contributed two more texts to the discussion/debate – both meant as response to some of the criticisms as well as clarification of my positions. I am now also posting them on my own blogsite, for which I have revised them slightly.
    I hope you would read them and, if you find them interesting, would request you to distribute them among your politically interested friends.

With best wishes

Saral Sarkar

For Saving the Earth We Need to Tell the Whole Truth -- An Eco-Socialist's Response to Richard Smith

1.12.2017

Dear friends,

A few days ago, I read an article by Richard Smith, an eco-socialist comrade, in which he has ably presented in short the eco-socialist case against both capitalism and "green" capitalism. In it Richard also called upon all his readers to "change the conversation". He asked, "What are your thoughts?" He wrote, if we don't "come up with a viable alternative, our goose is cooked." I fully agree. So I joined the conversation, in order to improve it – in the form of a response to Richard. In it you will find that I am not fully satisfied with his analysis, nor with his alternative. I find both a little deficient in some points. I have posted my response entitled

For Saving the Earth We Need to Tell the Whole Truth –
an eco-socialist's response to Richard Smith

as usual in my blog-site

www.eco-socialist.blogspot.com

I hope you would find both Richard's article (link given) as well as my response interesting. And, if so, I would like to request you to forward both to your politically interested friends. I would be very glad if any one of you get both published in some journal – online or printed.

Yours faithfully

Saral Sarkar