Destiny manifest

Even as ecological issues have migrated to the forefront of the consciousness of the average Western-world citizen (which ranges from high-minded activism to gas-is-so-expensive water cooler talk), and their lifestyles shift from rural and land-rich to the urban and high-density, the world's population still continues to increase dramatically. How do we, with dwindling resources, maintain a quality of life that we will find acceptable? Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" posited that we would not be able to do so via technology or science, but only by a change in our collective values, a change that lately has become more plausible as talk of our oil dependence takes centre stage. We still seek technical solutions; even the gloomiest energy pundit believes that a diversion of our current oil and gas-based resources to develop alternative energy would help resolve that quagmire, if it weren't for our collective disinterest in this solution.

The reality, though, is this: even if the entire population of the world became model conservationists and ecological stewards of the highest order, unless, collectively, people stop increasing that same population, energy conservation and recycling will likely do relatively little. It's a dramatic onus placed on the natural instinct, to reproduce, an instinct that even colours the majority's impressions of intentional childlessness. Today, every individual still acts in his or her own best interests, and people seek to reproduce for a variety of reasons -- for love, for posterity, for other less savoury reasons. In some ways, it's viewed as our natural right as animals to continue our species. We buy hybrid cars and replace our incandescent lightbulbs with energy-efficient fluorescents, and downsize into smaller and smaller apartments, but are we just delaying the inevitable? As rational and practical a policy of one or two children per family might be, will we be able to adopt this policy on time?

There are countries whose population growth rate is minimal: Japan, estimated at 0.05% for 2005, takes this honour. Although many look upon this as an indication of the decline of Japan and its society, we might have to look again at this measure. Japan is heavily urbanized, committed to energy prudence, with a population comfortable with smaller private spaces and small families: perhaps this is the type of society and culture that, in future, will ensure our continued existence. But that points up the real issue, the area where we should really be focusing our efforts. Even as the culture of conservation takes slow root in the soil of North America, the world is filled with overpopulated and underdeveloped countries, countries where the possibility of a natural population decline is as foreign as easily available contraception. These countries form the bulk of the world's population growth in the coming years and this is where any effects of conservation done in more developed countries will be effectively nullified. So, even as we applaud ourselves in the West, with our sudden focus on energy conservation and conservatism, our fuel cell technologies and solar arrays, we are far from real solutions. Even the vastest resources of land, energy and food are finite.

One of the more popular catchphrases, well-worn by its use in environmental movements, is "think globally, act locally" -- that is, we can do our small part at home and effect change throughout the world. What I suggest is that this is a nice slogan, but meaningless in the long run. We most likely will not see the effects for quite some time, not in our lifetimes and not in our children's lifetimes, but if we really want to contribute to the continuing health of the human world, we will have to think globally and act globally.