Hands Holding Glass Globe with Blue in the Background | Zero Population Growth Isn’t the Answer | Public Square Magazine | Zero Population Growth Movement

Zero Population Growth Isn’t the Answer, My Friend

Zero population growth was the rave in the 1960s and 1970s. I almost got caught up in it myself. As I look at my family today, I thank God I didn’t. Surprisingly, it’s still a thing today.

The family I come from is small. My mother was one of three children and my father was an only child. I have only five cousins and one second cousin. I have just one niece and no nephews. My brother and sister are close in age to me, and because we lived far away from our parents’ relatives, there were never any babies around. I really didn’t spend much time thinking about babies. I assumed hypothetically that there might be a couple in my future, but I never aspired to be a mother.

My parents were intellectuals. Science was the religion in our home as I grew up. Our magazines were Time, Life, National Geographic, Smithsonian, and Scientific American. Because my father was a nerdy introvert and my mother was a thwarted socialite with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), our family was dysfunctional. This was difficult and heart-breaking for me, especially in my teens.

Groups were beginning to encourage public awareness of the link between population growth and environmental degradation.

Life changed for me at age 15 when I found religion—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I started watching the Church’s semiannual general conference on TV. It seems like in those days, the Tabernacle Choir sang a hymn called “Love at Home” at every meeting. I would watch and weep.

Once I learned to pray, I prayed for just two things—to be a member of the Church, and to have a happy family. Decades have passed. I am a member of the Church and I do have a happy family—a large one—consisting of six children, seventeen grandchildren (so far), and (almost) 6 great-grandchildren. I kind of wish there were more of us. When I imagine my life without the Church, I know I would have limited my family, sought more college degrees, and focused more on a career—that’s what my culture and parents would have expected of me.

I was actually a teen when the idea of Zero Population Growth (ZPG) became a thing. Groups were beginning to encourage public awareness of the link between population growth and environmental degradation. As the thinking went:  When arable land is overburdened, people starve. When land is overburdened, environmental tragedies ensue. A little timeline:

  • 1948—Road to Survival was published by William Vogt—the message being that when humans overpopulate they meet the same fate as animals that overpopulate—they starve.
  • 1962—Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, exposing the environmental destruction caused by the indiscriminate use of pesticides.
  • 1960s—Lake Erie was called a dying sinkhole.
  • 1968—The Population Bomb was published by Paul R. Ehrlich and became a best-seller.
  • 1969—The Cuyahoga River caught fire in Cleveland.
  • 1970—Ehrlich (who had become something of a celebrity by now) predicted, “Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come, and by ‘the end’ I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.” During this same year, The US Congress formally removed the obscenity label from contraceptives.
  • 1972—The US Congress passed The Clean Water Act. Zero Population Growth activists also campaigned to help people and governments make the connection between a burgeoning population and environmental damage. And contraceptive rights were extended to the unmarried population.
  • 1973—Roe vs Wade legalized abortion and elective sterilization. This is the same year that “Saturday’s Warrior” debuted at BYU as a play—later becoming a popular video among Latter-day Saints, where one of the antagonists in the play riles up the child in a larger family by singing, “Zero population growth is the answer, my friend!”
  • 1975—The total fertility rate in the U.S. dropped from an average of 3.4 children per woman in the early 1960s to 1.8. And India sterilized 8 million women.
  • 1970s – 1980s—There was a campaign to forcibly reduce the number of births in poor countries.
  • 1979—China instituted its one-child policy and performed millions of forced sterilizations.
  • 2019—The US fertility rate fell to 1.71.
  • 2021—America is graying and cannot replace its dying citizens. The elderly will outnumber children by 2035.

The tipping point in convincing the world that ZPG is of utmost importance was in 1968 with the publication of The Population Bomb. Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, who studied the relationship between plants and butterflies. He didn’t invest much time in writing The Population Bomb (3 weeks) and it got off to a slow start. Eventually, however, Ehrlich, who has a winning personality, reached an audience of millions by appearing on talk shows. As the book picked up steam, it sold millions of copies and became one of the most influential books of the century—as bestselling author Charles C. Mann wrote in the Smithsonian magazine:

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”

It soon became both immoral and selfish to have more than a couple of children. In the late ‘70s, my father took me and my then 4 kids to Disneyland. We stopped for lunch at a cafe in L.A. I promise the kids were well-behaved that day. Yet every single person (including the staff) turned around and glared at us in full “cancel culture” mode. It was more than obvious that they thought I was a planet-killer. A comment from one patron (You’re so selfish to have so many kids!”) sealed the deal. We left before we ordered our food.

The Zero Population Growth movement has been extremely successful and continues to be.

I went on to have 2 more children after that. By some measures, it’s large, American middle-class families who are the worst offenders in the world, because they are big consumers and trashers of the environment. However, my children have gone on to become good citizens, educated people, government servants, Peace Corps members, and military officers. Was it selfish to raise these children? Remarkably, that’s precisely the conclusion of many in our world today.

What God Says

God was and is ever-present in my husband’s and my personal decisions regarding our family, especially in deciding how many children to have. In a book Latter-day Saints look to as additional, modern-day scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 104, verse 17, the Lord says,

For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

The scripture goes on to urge those who have plenty to share with those who have not:

Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

In other words, God is calling attention to a problem with distribution, not with a lack of resources, which we have “enough and to spare.”

The Zero Population Growth movement has been extremely successful and continues to be. Many believe this is one overarching reason the United Nations’ health initiatives so consistently promote the right to abortion. But what God has said is proving to be true, citing again Charles Mann:

In fact, famine has not been increasing but has become rarer. When The Population Bomb appeared, according to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization, something like one out of four people in the world was hungry. Today the proportion of hungry is about one out of ten. Meanwhile, the world’s population has more than doubled. People are surviving because they learned how to do things differently. They developed and adopted new agricultural techniques—improved seeds, high-intensity fertilizers, drip irrigation.

This chart, created with information from the World Peace Foundation, Tufts; and the Food and Agriculture Organization, U.N., illustrates how hunger has diminished as the world’s population has dramatically increased:

Meanwhile, developed countries especially are waking up to the deleterious effects caused by encouraging population control. For instance, one South Korean city is providing significant financial incentives to families—essentially paying families to grow larger.

Its new policy grants loans of 100 million South Korean won, or about $92,000, to all married couples residing in the city. If the couple gives birth to one child, the interest on the loan would be waived. For two children, 30% of the loan principal would be forgiven. If the family has three children the entire loan is forgiven or becomes a grant.

Other countries are also offering perks to get their populations to increase. Globally, no less than 23 countries are expected to see their populations halve by 2100, according to a 2020 study published in the Lancet.  The study made headlines around the world (despite the fact a number of important think tanks, such as the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna, have been predicting similar trends for years).  The researchers at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation project have also predicted that the global fertility rate will fall below 1.7 (children per couple) by 2100.

An MSNBC special report on how America and the world are facing underpopulation summarized the trend in even more detail, noting:

  • Millennial fertility in the US is down to 1.0.
  • The US birthrate is now at its lowest level in 35 years.
  • Women all over the world are more educated and more of them work, leading to smaller families.
  • The age of mothers when they give birth is increasing.
  • A lower birth rate yields fewer American-born workers and consumers.
  • This means fewer workers to contribute to the support of the elderly (Social Security).
  • Nations with negative birth rates have concerns about economic growth.
  • Japan is the canary in the coal mine—the median age is 48. The birth rate is down near 1.4. They lose about 400,000 people from their population every year.
  • Japan is trying to build more robots to replace workers. Robots can do work but they don’t consume anything.
  • Poorer countries currently have growing populations, but as they develop, populations shrink. Many from these countries will migrate to developed countries to replace their shrinking workforce.
  • Predictions show the world’s population peaking and then shrinking back to today’s size.

Statistics on a Personal Level

What do these things mean for day-to-day life when it comes to common people everywhere? Family disruption occurs in poorer countries when rural families lose their grown children to industrialized cities. In general, personal support dwindles as families get smaller and more people remain single (as in Sweden, where nearly half of adults are single). Economies are feeling the lack of young workers and the growing numbers of elderly who must be supported.

The decline of the family is likely a significant cause of increasing loneliness across all age groups and a lack of purpose and identity among young people.  One of the fastest aging populations in the world, Japan, even has a name for dying alone, Kodokushi, literally the “lonely death.”

Park Playground Painting | Zero Population Growth Isn’t the Answer | Public Square Magazine | Zero Population Growth Movement | World PopulationMy husband and I have 34 people so far in our family unit. During this time of the pandemic, we feel well supported. We will always feel supported. We are all doing our best to follow the classic Christian dictates to impart to the poor and the needy. We are also doing our best to appreciate and help sustain the resources the earth has to offer.

Granted, we have 6 children, not 11. The ability to decide how many children we have and when to have them is a modern gift that past generations didn’t have. For our personal good and the good of our countries and the world, we must choose wisely how and when to bring life into the world. Can we use our scientific advances and reason to prove that what the Lord said is true—that there is enough and to spare if we are wise with our resources? If we do so, perhaps we can avoid all the perils many still fear with overpopulation, while also avoiding the disasters that come with populations aging out and collapsing.

About the author

Gale Boyd

Gale Boyd has been a teacher, poet, author, and editor and is currently the copy editor for Public Square Magazine. Born in D.C. and raised in L.A., she joined the Church at age 16, converting from Science, which was the religion in her home. She discovered her true heritage a few years later and began her deep dive into Judaism at that point. Fifteen years into her temple marriage, her then family of seven began their 14-year adventure in international living by moving to Israel, where they lived for 8 years, adding one more child and changing the trajectory of eight lives.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Is it Okay to Disagree about THAT?!

While most Americans love to talk about the high value of “pluralism” and “free speech” when push comes to shove they usually have a red line—an issue on which it’s NOT okay to disagree openly. At least not publicly. What’s yours?

The Room Next Door Review

“The Room Next Door” is the latest example of arthouse social engineering.  The film is about a troubled woman, Martha, who in the midst of cancer treatments decides to commit suicide. If this bothers you, the film implies, it is because there is something wrong with you. This is all the more troubling, because the film, in many ways, is beautiful. It is directed by Pedro Almodóvar, one of the most acclaimed living film directors, in his first full-length film in English. And you can’t help but be taken by the beauty of it all. The film is suffused with the soft colors of the woods. Despite being an entire screenplay full of little except two friends talking, the camera work keeps the film alive and moving. And Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton who play Ingrid and Martha once again give impeccable, engaging performances, that you can’t help but admire.  But all the beauty in this film is in service of a story that is decidedly ugly—but not self-awarely so. Our two main characters are old friends who met as young writers. Ingrid has published a best seller recently, where she writes about how she can’t accept death. On her publicity tour, she learns that Martha is in the hospital with cancer. She goes to visit her and reignite their friendship. We learn through the conversations that these characters aren’t bad people, necessarily, they just struggle to see a world outside of their own desires and consciousness. They have repeatedly avoided building relationships or having families. Martha does have a daughter. But she chased her father away, then lied to her about who he was her whole life, and then proceeded to be an absent mother so she could chase the romanticism of being a war correspondent.  Now that she is sick and dying, she notices that she has no one in her life. The movie comments on this like an unusual quirk, rather than the inevitable result of a life of bad decisions. We learn early on that cancer treatment can be a roller coaster with euphoric peaks, and miserable nadirs. During one such rut, Martha purchases a suicide pill, and decides she will kill herself. She reaches out to Ingrid and asks her to come on vacation with her, so that she will have someone in the house when she does it.  Ingrid agrees. And although she early on expresses some discomfort, she quickly respects Martha’s wishes to largely pretend nothing is happening. They have a lovely vacation in upstate New York watching old movies and reading books. While they are there, Ingrid reconnects with Damien (John Turturo) an ex-boyfriend of both hers and Martha’s. He is horrified at the state of the world, and seems to only live for sex (or to constantly talk about sex.) Damien is not a sympathetic character, and perhaps the audience is supposed to read that his unpleasant and helpless politics are akin to Martha’s helpless approach to life. If so the audience hardly has time to ponder it under a heavy heaping of affirmations about the power to choose, and the dignity to die.  Eventually, Martha does exactly what she promised to do. There is a brief police investigation where the officer (Alessandro Nivola) expresses concern that Ingrid would have knowingly not gotten help for her friend. A lawyer comes and helpfully tells the audience we can ignore that concern because he is a religious fanatic. This is the kind of movie that alludes to James Joyce not just once but three times. It is so pleased with just how artsy it is. And for a film with a message like “life isn’t worth fighting for,” the best comfort is that it’s so artsy not a lot of people will watch it.  The only people I would recommend watching this film is for those studying how society has devalued human life, and how good tools can be misused to harm people. The film is rated PG-13. It includes several normalized same-sex relationships, and some joking about polyamorous relationships. But obviously the biggest warning is the way it normalizes and glamorizes suicide. If you watch it with older teenagers, I would focus on questions about the choice that Martha made, and how family and relationships could have helped her make better choices. I might ask about how Ingrid could have been a better or more caring friend. One out of five stars. “The Room Next Door” will be released in theaters nationwide January 17, 2025.