Home > Decent Democracy > Vol 2: On Democracy > Depopulation Fallacy

Depopulation Fallacy

For the moment this is just a copy of choice 3. from Humanity’s Energy Choices. But it will be expanded on in time. Thank you for your patience.

The certain cataclysm that would be caused by fossil-industrial subsistence, and the extreme political and practical difficulty a bio-energy energy economy, leads some to propose killing a majority of people, often the poor, under the euphemism of depopulation.

This genocidal movement, often praised in the main-stream media and ecological circles, lobbies for plans ranging from exacerbating famines, engineering super viruses, forced abortions and sterilizations , to passive justification of the loss of human life due to industrial exploitation of poorer nations (albeit the irrationality of this last position seems to betray a cynical and/or diabolical intent).

The problem with this plan is first that it is unethical to kill someone, or let someone die, if it is avoidable. The depopulation lobby confuses the idea that “the potential that something could necessary” with “that thing is actually necessary”. However, this is clearly untrue, simply imagining something might be necessary under certain circumstances does not mean those circumstances actually exist in the real world. For instance, I can imagine a situation where it would be necessary to kill you in self defence, but my imagining this does not mean you are actually attacking me in the real world.

In the real world depopulation would only be ethical to pursue if all viable alternative options to diminish our impact on nature had been tried and failed in a transparent and democratic way (not in some report by a handful of people biased towards depopulation publish).

This exhaustion of alternatives is currently far from being the case. And even if all these third options were tried — doing away with consumer culture, local solar economies, eating less meat, growing edible algae, putting a fraction of the subsidies into developing permaculture that is currently put into the ongoing petro-chemical-mass-plant-cloning-experiment on both animal and human subjects, food forests, greening arid land with food-forest-permaculture techniques, to name a few – a depopulation program would only be ethical if it too was democratically adopted and managed.

We should also note it is nearly ethically essential that the main proponents of depopulation be the first to volunteer for the program, otherwise it is difficult to assume their arguments are born from a genuine concern for humanity.

Secondly, if an alternative way of living sustainably is developed, humans may find important ecological roles, and a large population may actually be helpful in replanting trees and detoxifying the world.

However, Rather than try to work against people’s tendency to adapt, the alternative option is to work with this tendency and develop ways of living without fossil fuels nor the heavy ecological impact of a medieval-like society.


copyright 2006 - 2020 Eerik Wissenz