Caring for Creation:

Exploring Population Linkages

to the Environment, Health and Development

by W. Henry Mosley

Professor and Chairman, Department of Population Dynamics,

Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public Health

Email: hmosley@jhsph.edu

---

It took from the beginning of time for the world to reach 5 billion people. The next 5 billion will be reached in 63 years. Almost 95% of this increase will be in the developing and poorest parts of the world. For example, Africa's population will triple to 2.3 billion by 2050.

Population growth occurs mainly because of good health and our success as health professionals. Historically, poor developing countries had high birth rates and high death rates with no or very slow population growth. Rapid declines in death rates, without concomitant decreases in birth rates, however, have led to a population "explosion."

Maurice King, in a Lancet article, "Health Is a Sustainable State," calls this the "demographic trap" -- a situation where, because of externally applied health interventions, the population of an impoverished developing country begins to grow very rapidly. If no measures are taken to promote and support fertility reduction, birth rates and population growth remain high. Increasing population pressure can lead to a collapse of the ecological support system, famine, ecological refugees and a collapse of the social system.

Dr. King sees an ethical conflict between preserving the life and welfare of the present child; the child of the future; and the community. This sounds like a resurrection of Malthus but actually differs on two counts. First, King posits a local collapse as a consequence of population growth affecting all future generations; and second, he sees the local solution to the problem in completing the demographic transition. He proposes that "trapped" communities should decide what to do, and that we, as outsiders, should withhold aggressive health interventions. Programs to aggressively support child survival in poor countries without providing appropriate family planning information and services are, according to King, morally unjustifiable.

Population Growth, Consumption, and the Environment

Maurice King focuses the impact of the increasing poor of the world on the environment. But we should also consider the impact of the 1.1 billion people living in the rich countries. The organization Negative Population Growth (NPG) defines the environmental impact of population by the equation I = P x C, where: I = environmental impact ; P = population ; and C = consumption (or affluence times technology). The point here is that the environmental consequences of human activity are not simply a function of our numbers but also of our level of consumption.

Alan Durning, of the Worldwatch Institute, observed in How Much Is Enough that the 1.1 billion persons in the more developed countries consume, on a per capita basis, 60-70 times more than persons in Bangladesh. Given these figures, reducing consumption is the solution to environmental degradation. So why doesn't the U.S., as the leading developed country in the world, change its consumption habits?

The answer, as Alan Durning notes, is because our appetite for consumer goods is a deliberate goal of American business and government. From the business perspective, Durning cites Victor Lebow, a retailing analyst, who wrote shortly after World War II:

Our enormously productive economy demands that we make consumption a way of life, that we convert buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction in consumption . . . We need things consumed, burned up, worn out, replaced, and discarded at an ever increasing rate.

Consumption is a way of life that underlies the values we as Americans live by and are willing to die for. We resist raising U.S. gasoline taxes above 30 cents a gallon even though in Europe, for example, gasoline taxes exceed $3 a gallon. In fact, we would rather go to war, as we did with Iraq, to defend our high level of energy consumption.

More broadly, we even choose to measure and define development in monetary terms as growth in the gross national product (GNP), that is, as the sum of all goods and services produced and consumed. We easily accept that gains in the GNP are equivalent to development and that this should be the goal of all societies.

Economic vs Social Development

David Suzuki, a geneticist, in "Over Population Is Bad But Over Consumption Is Worse" criticized the dependence on the GNP as an indicator of development. First, the GNP does not measure and take into account environmentally destructive development. In fact, the right to pollute the environment has become a marketable commodity. Industries whose pollution is below federally permissible standards are now selling their right to produce pollution at higher levels to other industries which have exceeded these standards.

Second, the GNP does not take into account the heavy social price society pays as a direct consequence of being driven to a consumer lifestyle. This price is exacted in violence, alcoholism, burglary, vandalism, drug abuse, alienation, loneliness, and disruption of families and neighborhoods. Saint Paul described these exact conditions over 2,000 years ago (Romans 1:28-31).

Professor Marc Miringoff, of the Fordham Institute for Innovation in Social Policy, has developed an Index of Social Health to monitor the social well being. Similar to the Consumer Price Index, it combines seventeen social indicators, e.g., infant mortality, child abuse, teen suicide, drug abuse, and unemployment. In the U.S., this Index decreased from 71.8 in 1970, to 57.1 in 1979, and reached an all-time low of 32.9 in 1989. This is a telling indicator even as our economic prosperity remains the highest in the world.

As Alan Durning observed: "But possessions can't fill emotional and spiritual needs for 1) human relationships, 2) community, and 3) some purpose beyond accumulation of wealth and goods." Jesus made this same point when he enjoined us to store up treasures in heaven rather than treasures on earth (Matthew 6:19-21).

A More Fundamental Challenge

With the Age of Enlightenment, two economic giants appeared on the scene -- Adam Smith, promoting free markets, and Karl Marx, promoting communism. Today we know that communism has been proven a failure, but does that mean that unfettered capitalism must reign supreme and is without flaws?

Lord Keynes recognized that greed was the driving force of the free market system, but he viewed it as a temporary necessity to motivate people to work, to save, and to accumulate wealth. In 1931 Keynes, looking forward to the time when the economic problems of Europe and the U.S. would be solved within a generation, wrote:

The love of money as a possession -- as distinguished from the love of money as a means to enjoyments and realities of life -- will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi- pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to specialists in mental disease.

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. (Matthew 6:24)

So, here we are -- God's creatures on God's earth "a little lower than angels" (Psalms 8:5) with dominion over His creation, and with the capacity to preserve or destroy the earth and ourselves.

Consider again the state of the world. We are among the 1.1 billion persons overconsuming today and impacting enormously on our environment. At the same time we are often exercising enormous political and economic power in imposing our will on the 4.2 billion persons in the developing world. The world does need ecosustainable development, and health is a part of that. We have incredible potential for using our human capacities for good or for evil. It all depends if the values we hold in our heart come from the world or from God.

Even secular scholars of our day recognize that the human values underpinning our societies and nations are flawed and ultimately self-destructive. As Christians we already know this from God's word, and we can look to scripture for guidance in the choices we must make for ourselves and for our society if we are going to improve the lot of humankind on this globe.

Paul wrote to Timothy 19 centuries ago about the destructive consequences of a "consumption trap!":

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (I Timothy 6:6-10)

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (I Timothy 6:17-19)

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Love your neighbor as yourself. (Matthew 22:37, 39)

Editors' Note: This article is an abridged version of the keynote presentation which Dr. Mosley made at the 1993 conference of CCIH. The complete text is available at the CCIH website www.ccih.org.