Ethical Consumerism, Part 7 – How to Sustain the Population in 2050.

Hi folks! In the previous post, I looked at how we can take actions as consumers to help curb population growth. This post is about actions we can take to sustain the human population without completely destroying our planet.

Population growth fears are exploited by corporations

One of the most common abuses of the population growth issue goes something like this:

We must embrace GlobalCorp’s practices because we’re going to have 9 billion people to sustain in 2050.

If the thing in question is sustainable (for example renewable energy) then you don’t even need the population argument. If the thing in question is not sustainable – and this is often the case where the population card is played – then a rising population is a ridiculous argument to use. To adopt a non-sustainable practice to support the Earth’s human population of 2050 is insanity. Particularly considering the delicate state of our planet. If you examine the logic of this argument, the conversation might go a bit like this:

GlobalCorp: Just think of the children!

You: But what you’re suggesting is not sustainable. By definition, this practice can’t be sustained indefinitely. So, what about the children’s children?

GlobalCorp: Oh, they’re screwed! After eight decades of what we’re all doing, the <soil/oceans/forests/insects/etc.> are projected to be <degraded/dead/gone/extinct/etc.>

You: So, this is like a one-time last push to get as much out of the planet as possible to sustain a larger population? And then…

GlobalCorp: Who knows? Nobody can plan that far ahead!

You: And you’ll be dead by then anyway.

GlobalCorp: I guess so. Hang on…

<At this point you have to wait a few minutes for GC to get over a massive coughing fit brought on by a diet composed primarily of steak and cigars.>

You: Are you sure this is really about saving the children of 2050, and not at all about maximizing GlobalCorp profits right now?

GlobalCorp: Sir! Frankly I’m appalled that you should think such a thing! This conversation is over!  <More coughing.> 

Okay, perhaps that conversation would not have gone quite so candidly, but you get the point.

Is intensive agriculture needed to feed the population of 2050?

In the conversation above, GlobalCorp could represent an Agrochemical or Processed Food corporation arguing that we must increase yields at all cost in order to sustain the growing population. It’s often used as an argument against organic agriculture. Should we endorse this point of view? In a post on conventional versus organic bread, I looked at how the excessive use of nitrogen fertilizer on intensive farms results in higher greenhouse gas emissions and eutrophication of waterways such as the Gulf of Mexico.

Yields on organic farms actually increase over time when managed well (for example, wheat rotated with legumes) and can match intensive agriculture yields in a few years. Meanwhile, what happens if intensive agriculture continues for a few decades? At a minimum: a continuation of high GHG emissions and eutrophication. Quite likely: a drop in yield due to soil depletion and unsustainability of farming practices. Entirely probable: catastrophic ecosystem collapse on both local and regional levels. This isn’t science fiction – it’s happening all the time!

The population argument has created a fear-based mindset that causes people to entertain the possibility that it’s okay to take extreme measures. For example, to treat crops with insecticides such as neonics by default because we need that extra yield. And yet, France suffered no loss in corn and sunflower yields when neonics were banned. The yield argument is often a fallacy or offers a negligible benefit with a potential downside that far outweighs the benefit. In this case, the loss of bees and other insect populations.

How will we feed the 9 billion?

The most important actions to sustaining the population are fairly obvious to most at this point. But it’s no harm to have a reminder on key things to consider as an ethical consumer. (And I do consider these factors when writing Green Stars reviews of restaurants, supermarkets and food products.)

1.     Eat a plant-based diet

You probably don’t need convincing of this. Having a diet that’s derived mostly from plants is pretty much the best thing you can do if you want to live a more ethical life. An important 2016 paper looked at 500 scenarios for feeding the population at 2050 without causing further deforestation. They looked at several factors ranging from crop yields and land use to human diets – and the most important factor by far was diet. If the population generally adopted vegan or vegetarian diets then almost any of the 500 scenarios would work. If the average diet is meat-heavy then only 15% of the scenarios are possible, and they all involve intensification of the meat industry. This week, The Guardian reported on the emergence of industrial-scale beef farming in the UK.  

2.     Reduce food waste

The conservative estimate is that one third of our food is wasted. Tackling the “feed the world” problem via this route is much more effective than trying to increase crop yields by unsustainable means. A large percentage of planetary resources (land, energy, water) go into generating food and then, at best, we eat 66% of that food (probably only 50%) and toss the rest.

3.     Reduce consumption

Reducing consumption is of course a key part of ethical consumerism. Reducing your food intake to a little less than you think you need actually increases lifespan and reduces age-related health-problems such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. Besides eating less food, choosing raw ingredients over processed food can also help a lot, since the energy used in processing, packaging, refrigeration, etc. often exceeds the energy contained in the food itself!
A summary of the main points of the article. On the left, a representative from GlobalCorp Agrichemical is telling us to use all of their products all of the time. On the right are the suggestions to eat a plant-based diet, reduce food waste, and reduce consumption

How to reduce population growth

So, consumers can take the strategies above to do their part in sustaining the future population. And here’s a one-line recap of the previous post on a key way in which consumers can help curb global population growth:

Increase living standards in developing nations by supporting sustainable and mission-driven companies.

We can actually solve our own problems without GlobalCorp’s interference. In fact, their interference will only make our problems much, much worse.

18 thoughts on “Ethical Consumerism, Part 7 – How to Sustain the Population in 2050.

  1. Nice topic again! We need not only to reduce consumption or waste of food but also to devise a way to regain more green, such as desert greening.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks Kyoko – you’re a fast reader! Yes, and I was going to mention that there are of course some companies doing good things in agriculture. Developments towards sustainable agriculture and integrated systems – the opposite of the “GlobalCorp” example above.


  2. Reblogged this on Green Life Blue Water and commented:
    One of the things I like best about blogging is that it introduces me to other worlds, views, and opinions that I wouldn’t otherwise be exposed to, that I get great quality writing (for free!), and can also take advantage of an accumulation of knowledge that I wouldn’t have access to from my own life’s social circle. There are loads of people out there doing incredible things and posting thought-provoking, enlightening, planet-saving content to boot. The Green Stars Project is one of those truly amazing blogs that just gives and gives. If you want to be on the right side of environmental awareness, and conserve a few forests and maybe an ocean or two for your children’s children, then this is the blog for you. Thank you, Green Stars Project for all your hard work on behalf of the planet.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Thank you Lyz! I’ve listened to that argument at countless science seminars (esp. the plant biology ones) and it takes an effort to stop automatically accepting it and realize when the argument is just being abused.


  3. Reblogged this on the green mirmaid and commented:
    Want to solve world hunger? Stop wasting food.

    We produce enough food to feed everyone currently alive (and, to be honest, probably a few billion more). The reason 1 in 9 Hong Kongers goes hungry is that we are terribly inefficient with our food distribution – globally, at least 30% of food is wasted. In Hong Kong, 60% of that is domestic, so we consumers have little excuse (elsewhere, restaurants probably make a much larger percentage).

    I still need to do more research on the organic debate BUT one thing is clear – agriculture, as it stands right now, is pretty awful (let’s not even get into factory farming).

    Props to Jim for this succinct and important post!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you!
      I think that the answer to the question of whether the earth can sustain us is in our hands. Our daily activities and choices will seal our fate 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s