The Capitalocene Age

According to environment scientists, the Earth has entered a new geological epoch that will be less stable and less hospitable to human life. Because the change is driven by human activity, it is called Anthropocene – from the Greek anthropos, human being, which blames humanity as a whole for climate change. We’re told that people are the problem and only population reduction can prevent disaster.

The so-called population explosion actually doesn’t exist. Family size has fallen to a global average of 2.45 children and is projected to fall to two or less in the next few decades. The main reason why global population is projected to increase to 9 billion by 2050, and possibly 10 billion by 2100 (a high projection that is disputed by many demographers), is that currently, a large percentage of young people are entering their reproductive years. High fertility persists in only a few countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, because of deep class and gender inequalities and the failure to invest in education, employment and health services, including accessible, high-quality family planning. The overpopulation myth leads to the promotion of policies that are terribly unjust and inhumane.

The real challenge before us is to plan for the additional people on the planet in a sustainable way. Fortunately, that is possible, but only if we address the real causes of environmental pressures. The root cause for widespread misery and environmental degradation is the mode of production and consumption we have.  Instead of blaming overpopulation, people need to get serious about capitalism. We need to address the grotesque and growing inequality of wealth and power of the capitalist system that fuels conspicuous consumption. The dominant mode of agricultural production has huge negative impacts on humans and nature.

The focus on overpopulation is a great distraction from what really ails the body politic and the planet. People aren’t hungry because there isn’t enough food. People are hungry and malnourished because they aren’t getting the food that exists. On a world scale, there is more than enough food to feed everyone. Apart from conflict, famines occur because large numbers of the population don’t have sufficient funds to purchase foods, even though food was available – hence an issue of distribution, not limitation. Also In many developing countries, landowners harvest export crops (such as coffee and tobacco) rather than food crops for local people. Thus, hunger and malnutrition are the results of the existing political economy not any real shortage of food.

So much “overpopulation” propaganda appeals to images of overcrowding. However, population density (i.e., people per square mile) isn’t correlated with abject poverty. Countries like Japan and the Netherlands are among the densest to be found, but also have some of the highest standards of living and the longest longevity. Some of the poorest countries also are very sparsely populated (such as Mali). Thus, high population densities do not by themselves cause abject poverty nor do low densities guarantee health and prosperity. 

1. Certainly, there are millions of families that have more children then they can support, but this doesn’t make the world overpopulated. And in countries where lots of families fit this description, it itself is not a sign that the country is overpopulated. Let’s consider why families are having more kids than they can support. Women (and their mates) have “too many” children for four concrete reasons:
⦁ they have no access to safe and effective contraceptives;
⦁ the women have too few options other than being mothers
⦁ no social security system exists; and
⦁ the infant mortality rate is so high (so giving birth acts as a lottery ticket).

By demanding the more equitable distribution of wealth, education, economic opportunities, and health care, family size will drop. Population stabilizes with the reduction of poverty, increased access to contraceptives and immunizations, and the education and empowerment of women. Global sustainability requires socialism, not population control. Another world is possible if we end the rule of capital enriching the few and immiserating the many. Only a socialist society could establish the democratic economic conditions in which humanity can consciously regulate its numbers. Climate change will not be automatically resolved by the abolition of capitalism, but it is the necessary precondition to viable, long-term, and socially just solutions to such crises. Global warming requires swift action, but we can’t act effectively unless we clearly understand its causes. If we misdiagnose the problem, at best we will waste precious time on ineffective cures; at worst, we will do even more damage. Focusing on population growth isn’t just ineffective, it is harmful. Instead of confronting the real cause, it targets the victims of environmental destruction, people who don’t destroy forests, don’t wipe out endangered species, don’t pollute rivers and oceans, and emit essentially no greenhouse gases. The environmental crisis arises from a fundamental fault in our systems of production—in industry, agriculture, energy, and transportation. Society must confront and resolve the gross imbalance that exists between resources and human needs, including the absurd concentration of population into urban cities while converting productive farmland into cash-crop plantations.

The Socialist Party links environmental issues to a broader vision. Socialism stands for global sustainability and a world where humans live in harmony with the rest of nature.