All the people, so many people...

With childbirth at the front of my mind recently, I've been mulling over the population question. Part of this was stimulated by a brilliant letter in the Guardian on 27 Jan:

I have a simpler, more accurate way for you to judge your footprint. Count your children [my emphasis]. More than two (per couple) and you are living a lifestyle that is not sustainable in the long term. Your real carbon footprint stretches down the ages, via your offspring, and this long-term effect is the cause of most environmental problems in the world today, and tomorrow.
Dee Quinn
York

I haven't heard anyone mention the 'IPAT' equation for a long, long time. I don't normally do equations in this blog, but it goes like this:

Environmental Impact (I) = Population (P) x Affluence (A) x Technology (T)

So environmental impact depends on how many of us there are, how much money we have and the impact of the products and services (technology) we spend it on. Most of the debate today focusses on Technology and the "techno-fix" approach (keep flying, mate, 'cos one day we'll find a way of making those planes more efficient). Others, like George Monbiot, argue that constant economic growth will always wipe out technofixes and that we should start thinking about 'sufficiency' of our income to augment the 'efficiency' of technology. But the last of the three factors, population is the one almost no-one ever talks about.

There are good reasons why population is a difficult issue. Firstly, most people (me included!) believe that the right to reproduce (or not to) is a basic human right - how could we ever consider Chinese-style baby rationing in a free country? Secondly, the current pensions crisis is being caused by a bulge in the number of older people with relatively few people of working age to pay for their upkeep. Thirdly many world religions encourage large families to keep their numbers up, so there is considerable resistance to population control.

But just imagine what the world would be like if we had, say, a quarter of the population - everyone could live a Western lifestyle within the planet's limits and there'd be more open space left to nature. If anyone can come up with a solution that encourages a contracting population without riding roughshod over human rights, causing socio-economic meltdown, or involving bird-flu, then please let me know...