Inconvenient solutions
There is no doubt that the movie “An inconvenient truth” was able to change the perception of where our world is heading if we fail to act. The movie, combined with high gas prices and the war and Iraq was able to shake consciences and get our society moving. I am amazed by the incredible amount of business initiatives related to new renewable energy, plug-in vehicles, recycling and conservation in general and I am sure that everyone gets excited at the prospects these new technologies create.
I think however, that we are being misled. Most people seem to believe that we can solve the problem by changing slightly our behavior and applying new technologies. The truth is that we will need to go further. Initiatives like ethanol adoption may reduce foreign oil dependency in the US but consequences on the environment are far from clear. The Brazilian experience with bio-fuels is far from conclusive with many experts blaming in part deforestation in that country on the growth of the sugar cane plantations which are needed to produce that fuel. Other fuels perceived as alternatives to oil like diesel or hydrogen have their own issues. With really clean energy sources such as wind or solar growing too slowly, our only real option is to reduce energy consumption. Besides energy, the world is facing other problems such as lack of drinking water or food. How is that possible? Never in history has so much food been available and the same applies to water. The problem is simple, there world population is now six billion and counting. Since we cannot easily increase food, water or energy supply, the solution has to come from reducing the last variable, human population.
Do not worry, I am not proposing at all to start World War III or executing minority groups. What I would like to see is an open debate around the subject. What people should understand is that if for one generation (25 years) each woman only had one child, all the catastrophic prophecies mentioned by Al Gore would probably not happen. I am really puzzled by the fact that a solution as obvious as this one (although extremely hard to implement) is not even mentioned in most discussions. However, if we do not discuss the matter, it is very unlikely that parents will even consider the impact on the environment of having a large family.
Over the last few decades, in most countries (even the emerging ones), birth rates have been decreasing steadily. One reason has been the fact that parents have been bombarded with (not always obvious) messages on TV, movies and radio telling them not to have more children than they could afford. As a result, parents in those countries feel that they have the obligation to provide their children with good education, long vacations, and abundant clothing. As a result, couples have reduced the number of children they decide to have. That message has been good for children, parents and society in general. Why not slightly update that message now and include the fact that small families are good for the planet too and repeat it all over the world until everyone gets it?
We all know why. Such a message goes against the holy scriptures of most large monotheistic religions. Of course, at the time, the goal of their leaders was to outgrow their competitors to convert non-believers, by force if necessary, which made large armies a necessity. Today we face a planetary crisis. We need to discuss the options with an open mind. If this means upsetting some religious bigots, I personally don’t care much. More important issues are at stake.