Interview with David Paxson (World Population Balance)

Information: David Paxson is President of World Population Balance, a US-based organisation which promotes awareness of problems and issues surrounding present and future global population growth.

Steve: Hi David! Thanks for taking time to talk to us.

David: You're welcome. It's a delight to help out with raising population awareness.

Steve: You retired from a career in the financial sector in 1991 in order to start World Population Balance. Can you say something about the circumstances which led you to make this decision.

David: It was a combination of things really. I grew up spending a lot of time outdoors, in the scouts and with my family in our cabin in Michigan; so I spent a lot of time around nature. I also attended environmental education classes when I was at college, which was when I first became aware of a population problem. There was not one epiphany moment really. After I moved to Minnesota I began to attend a center for population studies (inspired by my earlier college experiences), where I met a professor who worked at the University of Minnesota. He allowed me to attend his environmental studies classes, which then led to me becoming a teaching assistant. Basically it was a series of steps.

Steve: In a nutshell, what is the message you promote through World Population Balance?

David: The message is basically that the world's population is currently at around 6.6 billion people, and is increasing by 9,000 people an hour (that's net gain). This means there are 9,000 more people on the planet now, than an hour ago. However, at the same time the resources we rely on to sustain life here on earth are declining. Three times more people are alive now than the planet's resources can sustain long-term; that is at a comfortable standard of living. Even more of a concern for us living here in the USA, is that the average European consumes about 50% less of the earth's resources than the average American.

'Collectively we do not understand the limits to our resources'.

Up until a century ago it didn't matter all that much what people did on the earth, because we were not making a huge impact (there were significantly less people around). However, today we are having a huge impact on the earth and the environment, and on a daily basis.

Steve: What do you mean when you say 'net population gain'?

David: Net gain is defined as births per day minus deaths per day. The current net population growth is about 9,000 people an hour (that's 140 people per minute, or 7 million people a year). However, at the same time as 9,000 people are being added to the planet, we have not increased the resources we need to live by, and in some cases these have declined (E.g. the amount of arable land has diminished due to the need to build houses).

'One of the problems we face is that there are millions of people in the USA who do not believe population growth is a serious or valid problem.'

Steve: Which areas of the world are seeing the biggest net growth in population?

David: Regionally, I would say the fastest growth has been in the African continent. It might have slowed a bit recently due to AIDS, but it's still the fastest.

Steve: What impact will unrestrained population growth have on the environment in the future?

David: I try to stay away from making predictions like that, for the simple reason that if I talk about things which do not happen then it could detract from the important message about population growth. In the past some people have made certain predictions, and when they have not occurred many Cornucopians (those who believe there are enough resources on the Earth to provide for the estimated peak population growth of about 9 billion people) have had a field day. Within the last 10 years I have had to do a lot of 'damage control', due to so-called predictions people have made in the past.

'Rather than say what I think or fear will happen, and I have some big fears, I would rather focus on what is happening right now.'

The important thing to keep in mind is that according to global footprint research, people are consuming 25% more of the earth's resources than the planet is producing (or to put it another way, we are consuming the earth's resources 25% faster than they are being replaced).

'It takes the planet 15 months to produce the resources we consume in 12 months'.

Because we are consuming our resource base, and not living on interest, at some point things will come to a head. We can already see this happening in certain places in the world, for example where there is famine. Of course, we should not be surprised to see this happening if people consume more than there is available to support them.

Starving child in Sudan - Source: www.godlovespeople.com

Starving child in Sudan

Steve: Do you believe there is any correlation between areas where populations are increasing, and say indigenous religion?

David: That's something I have not done much research on, but I do know that in areas where there are high numbers of devout Roman Catholics and Muslims for example, that there is such a correlation (that is, there are high population figures). One of our board members, a Jewish lady, remembers being told by a Rabbi that Jewish parents have a responsibility to give birth to three children; two to replace them when they die and one because of the Holocaust.

Whether religion contributes to population growth or not, the fact remains that people need to start having less children. If over the next 100 years no-one in the world had more than 2 children, then we could start getting the numbers down. This is the humane way - the inhumane way is to see population being reduced through such things as disease or famine.

Steve: How do you deal with people who are pro-life?

David: We have worked very hard in World Population Balance to bring people together from both sides of the abortion debate (we have pro-choice and pro-life members), but in the end we all agree it is better to respectfully disagree in order to focus on the issue of population reduction and stabilisation.

'When the Dalai Lama spoke at the University of Minnesota recently, he was asked what he thought was the biggest crisis facing humanity today. He replied, "Population!".'

Advertisements

Steve: What do you mean when you talk about humane ways to control population growth?

David: Humane ways include education; massive population education. Educating people about the reality that if you are struggling to feed and clothe two children, then having another is going to be problematic. One of our board members who worked in Nepal would often see women with a one year old child, coming in pregnant with their second child, but then subsequently finding out that the first child had died. Now why do you think this was happening? Obviously because they could not feed both children; and the same thing is not just happening in Nepal but in many places around the world.

'The problem we face is that many people have not seen this reality, and have no clue what it's like for the poorest 2 to 3 billion people in the world. The challenge is how to get the population message to resonate with them, especially when they live in the midst of abundance and delude themselves that the rest of the world is in the same position as there are, or could be.'

Steve: On your website www.worldpopulationbalance.org it says, "We have the technology and knowledge to solve [the population] problem". Can you explain what technology and knowledge we currently have to address the global population crisis.

David: We have education, family planning and the ability to control fertility. We simply need to educate people to see that they cannot afford to have more than two children.

'If people ask why we should deny others the right to have as many children as they want, my response is that the planet cannot afford it.'

People have always asked themselves if they could afford (financially) to have children, but now they should be asking whether the planet can afford it.

Steve: Do you believe China's approach to addressing its population problem has worked (or is working), and do you think such an approach is morally sound?

David: China's solution to its population problem might be considered draconian, but it has worked. If it were not for their one-child policy, China would have 300 million more people living there today. Unless China's leaders had done something, its population would now be 1.7 billion people, which is the equivalent to the population of the USA. Bear in mind that China's population basically lives on one side of the country, that's a lot of people in a very small space.

Actually, to get some idea of how many people live in China today, think about everyone you see around you and then multiply that number by 8. China had massive famines in the late 1950s when 30 million people died, so it was important that the leadership did something to prevent this from happening again.

Steve: Do you believe the problem is population growth, or the fact that people are living longer?

David: The latter is a factor, but it is basically population growth.

Steve: Finally, how can people get involved in 'spreading the word'?

David: Become a student of the issue, write to your politicians, and join an organisation which focuses on the population issue. However, bear in mind that not all environmental groups are concerned about global population growth.

'We can expend all kind of effort to recycle things and save the earth and endangered species, but all that will be for nothing unless we do something about the population.'

Steve: Thanks for taking time to speak to us David.

Further reading