“Uncontrolled population growth threatens to undermine efforts to save the planet,” writes Dr John Feeney who is an environmental writer based in Boulder, Colorado, US. He further goes on to say the environmental movement should stop running scared of the controversial topic of population growth. Similar outbursts have been made recently by a UK government advisor, Jonathon Porritt, that couples who have more than two children are putting an ‘irresponsible’ burden on the environment. Instead the government should divert money away from curing illnesses towards contraception and abortion services to limit the country’s population and help in the fight against global warming.
These rumblings have increasingly been reported in the media in the last decade as the call for a Green Environment gathers pace. Industries and Governments around the world have discovered a new venture of finding out the “Global Carbon Footprint,” and as a result a new industry in itself has emerged. I am not against saving the planet and the notion that there needs to be more consideration taken now, more than ever, for the environment, but measures such as birth control compels me to highlight the tacit mistakes that are being committed which if transformed to law, would be a disaster.
Without delving into the pros and cons of uncontrolled population growth, I would like to step back and look at the factors that have bought us into these trepid circumstances in the first place!
Ever since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the world has never seen in its history the astounding utilisation of natural resources, expansion of populations, destruction of natural habitats and species and lastly the new phenomenon of consumerism especially in the 21st Century. The Industrial Revolution created an unusual situation: for the first time in history products were available in outstanding quantities, at outstandingly low prices, being thus available to virtually everyone. The newly emergent middle class arising at the turn of the twentieth century continued to grow and feed the consumerism drive which has played its part in Globalisation.
Consumerism is an equation of personal happiness combined with the consumption and purchase of material possessions. Allow me to elaborate. A couple of decades ago once you had bought a car (let’s say a Nissan Cherry) the next time you buy a car would probably be after another decade. Nowadays people are exchanging their cars every three years (if not sooner)! Laptops are upgraded every two years and mobile phone promotions are held annually. The sheer desire to acquire a new product constantly either for luxury or status is the main culprit for the pervasive environmental degradation we see today.
What I have just described is exactly what has been happening in America and Europe for decades. But since China and India have emerged as the new Kids on the Block in the Economy world, does it now transpire for the Western Thinkers to start questioning about the environmental impact these populations will cause for adopting the consumerist life! Emulation is also a core component of 21st century consumerism. As a general trend, regular consumers seek to emulate those who are above them on the social hierarchy. The poor strive to imitate the rich and the rich imitate celebrities and other icons. One needs to look no further than the celebrity endorsement of products to realise that the American or British population rarely make their own lifestyle decisions.
It is the validity of personal happiness linked with purchasing and possessing materials as the ultimate objective of life that I question and believe to be just another example of the many rotten fruits of capitalism. I’m not advocating that everybody should live in a block of flats and drive Skodas. Nor am I advocating that we should live grey, mundane lives in a cave with no source of entertainment.
I am simply pointing out the obvious; if every individual is pushed in society to have a car, mobile phone, plasma TV, wireless Internet, iPod, large houses, buying expensive gifts for your girl friend on Valentines Day etc. you will naturally come to a point where no resources will be available to feed this addiction. An addiction created by the western world and its colonialist past.
Opponents of the anti-consumerist movement, namely, libertarians believe that no person should have the right to decide for others what goods are necessary for living and which aren’t, or that luxuries are necessarily wasteful, and thus argue that anti-consumerism is a precursor a totalitarian society. Twitchell, in his book Living It Up, sarcastically remarked that the logical outcome of the anti-consumerism movement would be a return to the sumptuary laws that existed in ancient Rome and during the Middle Ages, historical periods prior to the era of Karl Marx in the 19th century.
Ironically, Jonathan Porritt could now be labelled as one that calls for sumptuary laws!
In Islam it clearly delineates what is a necessity for living and what is a luxury. Obtaining luxurious items or earning tremendous amount of wealth is neither forbidden nor discouraged. However, based on the revelation from the Creator, it instructs how a society should function, where the real pursuit of happiness remains, what is the position of material wealth in the Islamic faith and more importantly how the environment should be treated. There is no draconian or appalling idea of population control which quite frankly would not correct the environmental problem the west or in fact the world faces today.
What is required is a fundamental change in living habits which can only happen when there is a change of fundamental ideas about life. I can see this can be a bit difficult for some people right now as they are probably too busy pondering about the Brit Awards right after they have watched the Baftas!
