The Stork and the Plow: The Equity Answer to the Human Dilemma
Ehrlich, Paul R., Anne H. Ehrlich, and Gretchen C. Daily. 1995. The Stork and the Plow: The Equity Answer to the Human Dilemma. New York: Putnam Book.
Rating:
10
Summary:
In a world where people are generally concerned about each other, this book would replace the Bible as the best-selling book of all time
This is another in the series of books written by Paul and Anne Ehrlich concerning population increase, consumption, and the impact of these two things on the Earth’s ability to sustain the human population. The first book written by Paul in the 1970s, The Population Bomb, was an instant success but highly controversial. Despite some elements of the initial argument being illustrated to not be perfectly accurate, Paul has not changed his message:
“It is also important that everyone understand clearly what the primary goal is: to organize a world in which all people can explore their full potential as human beings for many, many generations into the future. The short-term, desperate means of getting humanity on track toward that goal is to attempt simultaneously and quickly to reduce human fertility and substantially increase food availability while carefully protecting Earth’s life-support systems” (p. 262).
This goal is presented at the very beginning as well (though not as succinctly) and is followed by remarkably well researched illustrations of how the world is failing to pursue that goal, from the ever-increasing consumption behaviors in the developed countries (especially the U.S.) to the increased consumption in the developing countries (China and India) to the incredible population growth in the undeveloped countries (Africa).
But before the potential reader begins to think the book is all ‘doom and gloom,’ it is important to note that the authors also propose many ways to improve the situation at the national and global levels as well as at the individual level:
The Most Important Personal Steps
In the face of such a daunting menu of needs, what can a concerned individual do personally? The basic list is short:
- Have an absolute maximum of two children: preferably just one. If you want more, adopt.
- Educate yourself continuously on environmental issues. Nothing is more important to your future (including your economic future) and that of your children and grandchildren. Then pass on what you know to friends and coworkers. If possible, assemble a group and divide up areas of interest: you might concentrate on atmospheric problems, another on racial or gender equity, another on population problems, another on economic issues, and so on. That way you and your friends can greatly expand your grasp of the issues.
- Get involved in the environmental concerns of your community and join a local environmental organization. Human beings are social animals; you can get some enjoyment out of your efforts to save the world.
- Join as many national environmental organizations as you can afford – Zero Population Growth, National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense Fund are good examples. You may not always agree with all of their positions, but these NGOs are a major force generally pushing in the right directions. If you don’t like certain policy positions, become active within the organization.
- Support other NGOs that are working on the equity and other issues discussed in this book that are not normally viewed as “environmental,” but which we hope you are now convinced actually are. Be it the National Organization for Women or the Southern Poverty Law Center, these are groups that merit and need help.
- Change your lifestyle as much as you can to lessen your impact on Earth’s life-support systems (and usually improve your own health and finances as well!). Eat less meat, walk as much as possible, be energy efficient. Take as many as possible of the steps listed in 50 Simple Things You Can Do to Save the Earth (Earthworks Press, Berkeley, CA, 1990). By themselves they are far from sufficient, but they will all help.
Perhaps the best summation of the author’s approach is given at the end of the introduction, “We have no fear of our diagnosis of the human predicament being proven wrong – what terrifies us is that it will be proven right” (p. xvi).
Review:
This will likely be the most disturbing book most people will ever read, but it should and even must be read for the future of humanity. Unfortunately, as the authors point out, there is a strong contingent of power and wealth mongers working against the messages of this book, to the ultimate detriment of all of humanity, “Overweight, ignorant talk-show hosts [Rush Limbaugh] can prosper while remaining perfectly clueless about overpopulation, hunger, and environmental deterioration because they are personally buffered (at least temporarily) by their wealth from many of the consequences of Earth’s increasingly perilous state” (p. 54-55). Of course, right-wing talk-show hosts aren’t the only ones working against the goal outlined above (a world where everyone can have a good quality of life), some major religions (Catholicism) and national governments (George W. Bush and his right-wing administration) are also working against this goal, in large part due to an extreme level of short-sightedness (in part rooted in the ridiculous dream of an impending Advent that is never going to happen).
Because I absolutely loved this book (loved in the sense that I think it is superbly written and I agree with just about everything in it), I really have no criticisms of the book. Thus, the bulk of my comments are actually just going to be poignant quotes from the text highlighting some of points I felt were most important.
One of the primary points made by the authors is that in order to develop a sustainable human population, the Earth’s carrying capacity (pp. 3-4) needs to be taken into consideration. Based on their calculations, the authors, “have estimated that a global population of 1.5 to 2 billion people might be sustainable, enabling all to attain a higher quality of life than that of the average American or European today with a less destructive impact on life-support systems. Even if that is a gross underestimate – if twice that number turned out to be an optimum – population shrinkage will be required to get there.” The world’s population today is over 6 billion people. That means the world’s population needs to be reduced by 2/3 in order to be sustainable. How can you help – have one or no kids! As the authors repeatedly point out, we do have a choice: you can either choose to decrease the population humanely (by limiting the number of children you have) or you can let nature do it for you, resulting in famines and wars in which millions of people suffer and die. Take your pick…
The authors make another point that I, of course, have to emphasize as I already practice it, “Earth can support a larger population of cooperative, far-sighted, vegetarian pacifist saints than of competitive, myopic, meat-eating, war-making, typical human beings. All else being equal, Earth can hold more people if they have relatively equal access to the requisites of a decent life than if the few are able to monopolize resources and the many must largely do without” (p. 4). The authors advocate a vegetarian lifestyle in order to create a sustainable population. Meat consumption is one of the most environmentally destructive forces there is.
Another point made by the authors is one that I had not previously considered but which makes a great deal of sense, “Just consider the consequences of having designed the United States around the automobile, rather than around human beings, over the past six decades. This colossal structural problem rivals superconsumerism as an obstacle in transforming the U.S. into a sustainable enterprise. Redesigning and rebuilding the nation’s urban and suburban infrastructure to sustain human and environmental well-being will require decades” (p. 28; see also p. 243 quote below). I recently was discussing differences between Canada and the U.S. with an individual from Canada. This individual pointed out one of the main differences between the U.S. and Canada – she does not have to drive to work; public transit and the layout of the city are such that she can walk or take the subway to work. She seldom uses her car. The U.S. truly is designed around the automobile, but what people need to realize is that there is a limited supply of oil. What happens when it’s gone?
A final point made by the authors that I found enlightening (though no less disturbing) is the idea that, “…part of being poor means destroying today what could have sustained you tomorrow. Not by choice, but as a necessity for immediate survival” (p. 230). I had not considered this point either, but it makes a great deal of sense. Individuals that are doing their best to survive today over-use land and other resources, making it virtually impossible for them to continue to exist tomorrow. This is a sad state of affairs.
The authors make many more important points (see the quotes) below, but rather than repeat the text back to you with my commentary, I’ll simply encourage you to read the book. This really should be required reading in high school science classes. In fact, I think I may begin giving it as a gift at weddings and for Christmas; it really is that important.