Критика теории перенаселения: почему предупреждения ученых о катастрофе ошибочны и опасны

A group of scientists are, once again, predicting imminent disaster because of overpopulation. “It might sound like the evil plan of a nefarious villain,” a recent Daily Mail, article read, “but scientists now say that we need to halve Earth’s population to save the planet.” The researchers have even offered “non-coercive measures” to lower the global population to four billion by the year 2200. Of course, that includes “providing women in low–income countries with family planning services.” Their plan, according to The Daily Mail, is similar to that of Marvel villain Thanos, who thought he could eliminate suffering by eliminating half the human race. Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com Rather than seeing people as incredible resources of creativity and ingenuity, Thanos and these scientists assume that more people means less food and less wealth. Like a zombie that keeps coming back no matter how many times it’s killed, this thinking is a rehash of the flawed work of Paul Erlich. His 1968 book, The Population Bomb, which predicted global starvation and utter economic collapse if the population at that time didn’t stop growing, is perhaps the best example in recent memory that “ideas have consequences” and that bad ideas have victims. In fact, as an obituary to Ehrlich admitted, his ideas “encouraged mass sterilization program[s] in India and the one-child policy in China and influenced how children everywhere were viewed and valued.” His predictions were, as Chuck Colson noted in 2001, spectacularly wrong. [A]lmost none of the dire predictions associated with what Ehrlich called “The Population Bomb” came to pass. That’s because the doomsayers didn’t understand what it really means to be human. Ehrlich’s was only the most dramatic expression of a worldview that saw reducing birth rates as the key to not only humanity’s, but the entire planet’s fate. In this view, people were akin to parasites. They consumed resources and gave little, if anything, back. Population had to be contained both for our sake and for the sake of the earth. In fact, since Ehrlich’s ideas became mainstream, the world population has more than doubled, from 3.8 billion people in 1972 to an estimated 8.3 billion today. Yet, instead of mass starvations and increased conflicts over resources, crop yields have increased dramatically and global rates of undernourishment and starvation has been reduced by more than half. Humans are simply not the virus that Ehrlich, Thanos, and these scientist claim. Yes, we do create a mess of problems, but we are also innovators of additional resources and new solutions. That, of course, makes sense if the Biblical story of reality is true and the naturalistic one is not. If we really were made co-creators by the One who created all things, humans are not just consumers but producers who are tasked with cultivating the creation. In contrast, population scare warnings have very real victims—tens of millions, in fact. In just the last 50 years, over 60 million Americans have been killed through abortion, and among what has driven the practice is the fear of bringing a child into a dying world. In China, where the myth of the population bomb led to the horrific one-child policy, some 300 million babies were slaughtered, many against the will of their mothers. Instead of saving the planet, vain ideas of population control have left the nations of the world with a birth dearth. Russia, China, and Japan are notably struggling to maintain their numbers even as their older population phases out of the workforce. The same is happening in the U.S. Zombie ideas of overpopulation and human pestilence gets humanity tragically wrong and misunderstands the created world. Had Ehrlich’s claims remained in his books, the damage would have been minimal. But his ideas, as they tend to do, grew feet and walked into the real world of image bearers. They wreaked havoc. It’s long past time for this zombie to stay dead. LifeNews Note: John Stonestreet writes for BreakPoint.org. This article was originally posted here.