Industrialism and Overpopulation

Industrialism and Overpopulation

§1. Overpopulation

1.1  It is well established amongst both laypeople and so-called experts that the world is drastically overpopulated.

1.2  Indeed, this is a point upon which the vast majority of people can agree.

1.3  The global population currently sits at 7,530,000,000, or 7.53 billion. Asia, with approximately 4.5 billion people is the most populous continent, and China and India combined account for 36% of the world’s population. The United States of America is the most populous western country, with almost 320 million inhabitants, whilst the European continent contains well over 500 million people. Africa, with its 1 billion inhabitants – projected to rise to over 4 billion this century – is also a major contributor.

1.4  Size alone doesn’t quantify our overpopulation problem. We must also consider the density of population, which is arguably an improved metric.

1.5  Excluding dependencies and minor principalities, countries such as South Korea (1,339 per square mile [p/sqm]) and the Netherlands (1,081 p/sqm) are amongst the most densely populated. They are closely followed by countries from around the world, such as the United Kingdom (710 p/sqm) and Japan (865 p/sqm). The Indian subcontinent is particularly dense, with 1,064 p/sqm.

1.6  When we consider that these statistics don’t take into account large, inhospitable areas of a country (Scottish Highlands, Japanese mountains), we may note that the actual density, measured by the average number of people living in any given square mile, is much higher than accepted figures suggest.

1.7  The population density of large cities, which will constitute the main focus of this essay, is generally much higher than the national average.

1.8  Densely populated cities are indiscriminate in their location, appearing all across the world in Industrial societies. Notable examples are Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, with 88,545 people p/sqm; Le Pré-Saint-Gervais (Paris), with 67,074 people p/sqm; Mumbai with 73,837 people p/sqm; Neapoli (Greece) with 60,186 people p/sqm, and so on.

1.9  It is clear that the city, representing the epicentre of Industrial Society, is the driving force behind this drastic overpopulation.

§2. The Culprit: Industrialism

1.1  We instinctively know that the extreme scale of our population is as a result of the city and its expansion, which in turn exists because society relies upon the Industrial mode of (mass) production as its economic model.

1.2  The data wholly supports this assumption.

1.3  A high level view is initially supportive; if we agree that Homo sapiens have existed in their current form for 200,000 years – which is the widely accepted date – then we can assert that it took almost 200,000 years for the human population to reach 1 billion, which it did in 1800.

1.4  Moreover, we can agree that the Industrial Revolution was well underway by this date, but given the steady population growth preceding this point we cannot automatically assume Industrialism is solely to blame for the human population reaching the 1 billion landmark.

1.5  However, when we consider that the population has taken only 200 more years to grow to its current 7 billion figure, and contrast this to the 200,000 years taken to reach a solitary billion, the correlation becomes much stronger.

1.6  Thus, we can assume a strong correlation between the Industrial mode of production and a rapid increase in population.

§3. How?

1.1  Whilst the correlation between Industrial Society and rapid population expansion is clear, the precise way in which this occurs is perhaps less so.

1.2  After all, circumstantial factors like human agency and medical advancement are often proposed as causes of population expansion that run parallel to, but do not directly stem from Industrialism.

1.3  Human agency is a red herring; we are driven by a biological instinct to reproduce, and thus we will do so as efficiently as possible within the parameters of our local environment (infant mortality, resources etc.).

1.4  Parallel factors such as medical advancement are, of course, noteworthy, but as was argued in The Myth of Progress §7, these occur in spite of Industrialism, not because of it. Similarly, we can assert that the human population would naturally self-regulate, were it not for an external influence exerting catalytic pressure thereupon.

1.5  The real source of overpopulation is Industrialism, or “the market” or any other euphemism one might use for the forces that operate in economies.

1.6  Profit is the primary goal of Industrial Society, which is achieved by mass production. In order to increase production and, therefore, profit, either the mode of production must be further optimised or the number of people involved in producing it must increase.

1.7  Once the mode of mass production has been optimised to its fullest extent within the parameters of available technology, only expansion of the labour force can secure increased production and, therefore, profit.

1.8  An often-unconsidered point is that it is far easier to increase the labour market than it is to optimise modes of production. Modal optimisation requires technological advancement driven by special individuals, whereas population increase simply requires Industrial Society to take advantage of man’s instinct to breed in order to produce labour cannon fodder (Wage Slaves).

1.9  The relationship between labour and Industrial Society is essentially one of supply and demand; labour is the commodity, for want of a better word, that needs to be supplied in order to meet the demands of Industrialism.

1.10 The latter, therefore, creates the conditions necessary for the increased demand to be met, and thus we reach a situation described in §1 1.8, of incredibly densely populated cities (epicentres of Industrialism).

§4. Environmental Consequences

1.1  The consequences of overpopulation for the natural world are, generally speaking, extremely obvious.

1.2  The increased living space required for large populations clearly requires the epicentres of Industrialism to be expanded. This provokes further encroachment on the natural world, as wild land is covered in concrete and large trees are replaced with row upon row of houses or high-rise apartments.

1.3  This, coupled with carbon emissions, subsequently drives pollution and the misalignment of nature’s ability to organically regulated the elemental composition of the very air needed by most living creatures to breath (plants and trees absorb CO2 and emit oxygen, the inverse to what animals do – this represents the natural synergy of nature’s components that we disrupt with overpopulation).

1.4  Furthermore, Industrial society consumes enormous amounts of energy to function – mass production requires mass power. Increasing output requires increased input, in addition to the increased energy demands that naturally arise from an increased population. Inevitably this demands fossil fuels and, in any case, sustainable energy sources are impractical for mass production.

1.5  In addition to these demands, overpopulation also demands ever-increasing sources of sustenance. This means, in practical terms, that more forestry is destroyed in favour of farmland, which destroys more natural habitats (one only needs to research palm oil and the effect the demand for that has had on orangutans in their natural environment).

1.6  Perhaps the greatest environmental indictment on Industrialism’s overpopulation is the way in which it affects animals.

1.7  Whereas pastoral societies raise free range animals that live contented lives before providing humans with a source of nourishment, Industrialism’s overpopulation causes animals to be viewed as a commodity like all else.

1.8  What matters, then, is the extent to which meat can be mass-produced for society’s increasing demands. And the expansion of this mode of production into the meat industry has seen the advent of battery farming and the traditional farm being transformed into nothing more than a killing field.

1.9  Further ills of this sector can be personally conceived of. They are too abhorrent for anyone to require them to be listed here.

§5. Anthropological Consequences

1.1  The human consequences of overpopulation are sometimes more subtle, or at least are of lower public awareness. This is likely due to Industrial Society seeking to avoid questions being raised about its mode of living, thus human problems are blamed on peripheral factors.

1.2  Nevertheless, we can quite clearly establish problems caused for mankind by overpopulation that are clearly correlated therewith.

1.3  As mentioned in §4. 1.3, the very air that we require for life is being frequently poisoned by pollution and by the fact that the natural balance nature stimulates is being disrupted by human activity. Thus, the city – a source of overpopulation – becomes negative for mankind’s physical health in this quite clear and obviously detrimental way. Numerous respiratory illnesses that simply didn’t exist prior to Industrialism are now prevalent.

1.4  Furthermore, the sedentary lifestyle of those living in the epicentres of Industrialism is enforced and encouraged by that mode of production. The increased need for living space sacrifices recreational space available for physical pursuits. Man could once hike, fish, hunt or pursue any number of physical pursuits in his recreational time, but these options are no longer readily available to those of little means (the majority).

1.5  The industrial mode of production, when applied to food production as is necessary for a massive population, further degrades the quality of food available. Thus, overpopulation and mass production have increased the demand for “convenience food” which invariably contains all manner of additives, the presence of which is justified by “efficiency”.

1.6  The most clear and present danger of Industrialism to human wellbeing, however, is the psychological damage it causes, and this is caused at least in part by overpopulation. A 2010 study (Peen et al.) found that living in a city ‘sharply increased the risk of psychiatric disorders, and specifically mood, anxiety and substance disorders’. Similarly, a 2011 study (Lederbogen et al.) found that people living in cities ‘react to stress with more activity in the amygdala’ – the part of the brain dealing with fear and emotion.

1.7  Even without reliance on prestigious psychiatric studies such as this, we can clearly see with empirical data that the city and, therefore, overpopulation, is extremely detrimental for human psychological wellbeing.

1.8  Living in fast-paced, high density environments causes severe depressive and stress-related problems in large numbers of people. This is obvious when we consider that nearly 25% of those in western Industrial countries are taking or have taken some form of prescription antidepressant – the vast majority of these cases inhabit large urban areas of high population density.

§6. An Ideal Population?

1.1  Following our indictment of overpopulation as being the driving cause behind numerous anthropological and environmental ills, it seems reasonable that population size in the post-industrial society is then discussed.

1.2  Throughout history, it is fair to assert a natural population growth based upon various innovations such as farming and pastoralism. Palaeolithic Hunter-gatherer societies were notably small, for obvious reasons.

1.3  It is believed that the population of the planet grew to between 1-15 million around 10,000 years bp, parallel to the spread of agriculture. This growth clearly continued, as it is estimated that between 50 and 60 million people lived within the combined Roman Empire in the 4^th century CE. The Plague of Justinian – so-called – halved Europe’s population by the 8^th century.

1.4  In 1340, the population of Europe was believed to be 70 million, but the world’s population in the same year was around 450 million. The Black Death pandemic of the 14^th century claimed almost half of this figure, which affected places as far flung as China which saw its population decline from 123 million to just over 60 million in half a century.

1.5  These are just numbers, and it is impossible to discern from them what an ‘ideal population’ would be. We know that numbers such as the aforementioned were beginning to affect the environment, and we also know that the expansion of agriculture into Europe precipitated large-scale deforestation over subsequent millennia, as new farmland was constantly sought after.

1.6  What is crucial is that we once again subject humanity to the natural order, as opposed to the artificial doctoring of population sizes that is engineered by the industrial mode of production.

1.7  We must then trust nature to regulate the human population, as it does with all other species, in order to find a natural range within which we may live healthily and without permanently damaging our environment.