As I write this piece, it is freezing cold in the part of Nairobi where I have lived for many years. Even though our heater called the sun is still 150 million km from our planet Earth. Even the moon is exactly where it has been for millions of years since it became a satellite to planet Earth.
Why am I saying this? The answer is simple, actually. That is: Left to itself, the planet can manage its allocated job as a member of the universe quite well. But nature loaded onto it a creature known as man. Religion apart, no one knows man for sure how man evolved. Yet, it is anatomically similar to most other animals occupying planet earth. Except for its brain.
Truth be told, the brain of a human being is so complex that one wonders how it came to be what it is to-day. The Jewish belief that man was created by an unknowable God in his own image must remain that: a religious belief incapable of proof. A story for another day. There is little doubt that the current climate has something to do with man. Given the way it uses its brain – war, murder, politics, engineering, inventions, etc – there is little doubt that man is en-route to destroying itself. Unlike the dinosaurs that were wiped out by a climate disaster – global heating – there is little doubt that man will destroy itself through its greed and pursuit of pleasure.
Think about it. The population of mankind is now eight billion. When I was born 78 years ago, the population of the world was 1.7 billion meaning it has been increasing at 2.2 per cent every year since 1945. The big question is: At that rate what will the population be in the next 78 years. The answer is simple maths: 38 billion. I leave the reader to figure out the implications of having that kind of population in the world.
Reduction in population growth
Before we go that far, I remember a book I read many years ago that was published in 1972, Limits to Growth, after a global meeting called ‘The Club of Rome’. It was then predicted that unless mankind controlled its population growth there would be no food to feed people in the next 40 years. That would be 2010. Most people at that time scoffed at the idea saying man would find other types of food to eat.
They were right. In 1958, the world’s population was around 2.9 billion. Compare that with the current eight billion. No doubt there are people who will scoff at the idea of the population reaching the projected 38 billion but then the economists of 1958 did not believe a population of 8 billion was feasible.
There is little doubt today that planet Earth can sustain a population of 38 billion. The only viable alternative is that human population will grow at a much lower rate going forward. The big question is how will this reduction in population growth be achieved?
There are several options. The first one is to cut human longevity to less than 70 years. Will this work? Given that the current population of people over 70 is only around five per cent, it is unlikely that wiping them off will have any major effect. Someone tried to do it with the coronavirus which killed mostly people over 65 years old in Europe and America but then another scientist found a way to kill that vicious virus. Before you disagree with me, remember there was a widespread belief that the virus was man-made. Unfortunately, it ended up killing a lot of the wrong people if you get my point. An exercise in futility.
Biological approach
The more feasible alternative is to reduce the reproductive capacity of young people. Remember that menopause in women occurs at around 50 when men are still virile. The futility of this approach should be obvious: how do you control the virility of youth? An impossible biological approach. What, then, are the alternatives? One, offer incentives for non-reproduction, or low reproduction by married couples (read women). Is this possible especially with certain religions? I doubt it.
The second alternative is to allow nature to control itself through its own means – like climate change – that can wipe out most of mankind and other creatures. Question is: Can man defeat nature no matter what resources you put into the battle? As predicted in the Bible, there is the possibility of an Armaggedon (end of mankind) made more than 2,000 years ago.
The conclusion should now be obvious. Since modern man cannot or should not allow its own extinction, then he must find a way of controlling its growth. I dare not suggest what kind of options there are.
I, sadly, leave it to the next generation. It is their call. Or, leave nature to do its own thing. Which will not be funny.